Talk:Nephilim: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 09:36, 20 April 2024

This page is not a forum for general discussion about uncited theories on the possible origins of the Nephilim. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about uncited theories on the possible origins of the Nephilim at the Reference desk.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Hebrew Bible translation

Shouldn't the NJPS translation available at https://www.sefaria.org.il/Genesis.6?lang=en&aliyot=0 be referred to? Mcljlm (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norse Mythology

The mythological Abrahamic and Norse giants, respectively the nephilim and jötnar, seem like they may be connected, due to the striking phonic similarities between the terms Nephilim and Niflheim / Niflhel. Is there any reliable evidence of any connection between the two, and is this similarity noteworthy? B. A. Beder (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only noteworthy if someone other than you has also noted it and has had their work published in an independent reliable verifiable source somewhere. The mere semblance of similarity, however obvious it may appear to you, is not a reason for drawing a conclusion on Wikipedia. That would constitute WP:OR. A loose necktie (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek translations

When discussing the choice of the Greek word 'gigantes' the article makes the claim that 'The Heb. nefilim means literally "the fallen ones" [...]'. This seems to directly contradict the Etymology section which claims that there is no agreed-upon translation of nefilim. I have no expertise to make this call, but I would suspect the Greek translation explanation needs editing. ColoradoBrownstain (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NEPHILIM

Try to translate this in Albania lenguage .. Nephilim in Albanian - Në Fillim .. 95.107.191.5 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section to be expanded upon

While the information there is interesting and valuable, there is no actual etymology present. It should be expanded upon. —Polynilium (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the reference to them in Numbers 13 was part of an exaggerated/false report given by the spies sent to scout out Canaan

The reading is clear to me that these spies said "the land devours people and there's nephilim!" in hopes of avoiding war. God punishes them for this in Numbers 14.

It is not a reliable account that nephilim existed post-flood. 73.150.209.138 (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen angels cannot be "sons of God"

Without this making God their father. That is blasphemy of the worst kind. https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-27.htm And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.

⁴⁹ Jesus, pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. ⁵⁰ For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_12:49%E2%80%9350

Fallen angels/demons are those who rejected God's commands. In Job 1:6, it says on a certain day the sons of God assembled before Him and Satan was there >also<. That means Satan is also not a son of God. If Satan is the chief of fallen angels then they must not be God's sons, either. ⁶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan^[a] also came among them. 2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:110A:15CB:ADF1:22E2 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=5|class=C}}
 {{Not a forum|uncited theories on the possible origins of the Nephilim}}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Bible|class=C|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Bible|importance=low}}
-{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=C|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=low}}
-{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}}
-{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}}
 }}
 {{Annual readership|days=90}}
@@ Line 18: / Line 17: @@
 }}<!-- 16:10 September 30, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->
 <!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->
-== Now they're super-heros.. wait, WHAT? ==
-{{Collapse top|reason=Incomprehensible rant}}
-In the section relating the Sons of God to fallen angels, this rather bizarre statement can be found:
-From this parallelism it could be inferred that the sons of God are understood as some superhuman beings.[21]
-Never mind that the concept of being divine beings has NO relation to any sort of human subspecies.. it is UTTERLY out of place under a section making the point of the Sons of God being fallen angels.
-Just to be certain that it wasn't a misquote, I went to the original article to verify. It actually IS a misquote, but the author of the original article is making various wild suppositions, so personally, I would just strike the comment entirely.
-Note that the preceding comment about the fallen angels having male anatomy but being of godly origin is almost equally out of place, as angels in general are sexless in the first place. This statement should be tagged and just deleted entirely unless someone can show how the fallen angels were granted the ability to HAVE a sex and procreate, possibly sourced in the apocrypha, catechisms or etc.
-Finally, I would like to note that the CreationWiki article on the old Hebrew term Bene Ha Elohim does a MUCH MUCH better job of explaining the Sons of God as being of divine origin than the one here does.
-http://www.creationwiki.org/Bene_Elohim
----
-Below I noted various, ridiculously hotheaded and lengthy, discussions on whether or not Nephilim are mentioned in Sumerian texts. They in fact ARE mentioned. As I recall, the actual term (Nephilim) translates almost directly, in actual fact. The problem is that THAT research predates the internet and quick access to questionable information. It also predates the modern understanding of the 'Anunnaki' entirely, and is actually unrelated. That's why the Anunnaki 'researcher' was unable to locate the source of the information readily. I believe that with a bit of ACTUAL research and effort, either author of the diatribe below could have found the source information faster than the lengthy argument took.
-However, I just checked the Wikipedia page on the Anunnaki.. and it begins with the wild statement that the Anunnaki were universally recognized in ALL of the ancient pantheons. HORSE MANURE!! In the first place, even the word itself Anunnaki is of questionable translation, let alone it's loosely interpreted translation of events. In the second place, I would LOVE to hear somebody squarely place an alien race in to the middle of the Akkadian legends. Talk about a square peg in a round hole. Somebody is smoking some serious crack.
-Ok so, on a related note, the guy with the OPINION that Sumerian mythology precedes the Bible.. WRONG. The written Bible predates every other derivative work on the planet (for obvious reasons other than academic). Even Baal is an obvious bastardization of the Cain story. The inverse is ludicrous. Note that while we may have reason to doubt that Ethiopian translations are cannon, we CAN relatively safely respect their records relating to the oldest written copies of the bible.. which as I said, predates every other pantheon in existence, including Baal and even archaic Goddess worship (Wicca).
-Wicca is commonly recognized as the worlds oldest religion simply by the merit that in the days of Adam and Eve, nobody actually WORSHIPPED God. God walked the earth in the days of the garden and after. The first inkling of worship is when Cain and Able both (spontaneously) decided to offer God gifts out of thanks (not worship). The rest, as they say.. is history. ^^
----
-Finally, the reason I came here in the first place.. I've run across an article stating that the....
-Never mind, I found more inconsistencies on the Ell page. I think I answered my own question while postulating on that Talk page (still curious why 3,000 ells isn't mentioned on THIS page):
-Someone do some quick math for me and figure out how tall a hominid 3,000 ells would be?
-Uh-huh. I just saw some other article from someone (obviously using this as their source) claiming that the Nephilim MUST have been 2.4 miles tall. I didn't check his actual math, but based on this interpretation, I think I know where he got that idea.
-First off, the cubit and ell were confused and cross referenced in definition in medieval times. THAT'S why you have wildly different measurements dating from the old testament compared to relatively modern interpretations. As correctly mentioned below, the term was generally defined by whichever local monarch carried the biggest stick (not a pun for ruler).
-In addition, there is a large amount of confusion about HOW the length of an ell was determined in ancient times. It's obvious that no one here is privy to that information. It is commonly understood that the length of an ell was measured by forming the shape an 'L' with some joint of the fingers, wrist or elbow. Obviously, it would be impossible to get a measurement of 45" using this methodology, without detaching some part of your arm to do it. Now maybe I'm over-simplifying the matter (on the other hand my best guess is as good as anyone elses' guess), but my best L is made by using my thumb and forefinger to make the traditional 'Loser' hand gesture. (Ok, honestly, I'm recalling a pre-internet based scholarly exposition on the topic which used this same modality). The distance from my thumb to forefinger in this position is (oddly) six inches, precisely. (I am 6' 2" tall.) Let's adjust for Old testament men being significantly shorter (4' 6" to 5') that brings us to 4.5" or 5". (Hmm, 4.5" verses 45".. HMM..) I'm going to guess that human nature hasn't changed in the last few millennia, and that the king was the tall handsome burly guy.. so we'll use 5" as the 'kings measure'.
-" x 3,000 (ells) = 15,000 inches = 1,250 feet = still ludicrous.
-Now I can't recall the logic of it, but since they can categorically throw the 5" figure out, they had some logic to use the width of a finger next. They had some logic to relate the width of the finger to a centimeter, so I'll just follow that..
-cm x 3,000 = 3,000cm / 2.54 = 1182 in. = 98.5 ft. = implausible, but POSSIBLE
-Personally I always pictured the Nephilim as somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20 ft. tall. Largely due to David vs. Goliath legends I suppose. HOWEVER, the author in question compares the description of the Nephilim in the various biblical references to the description of the titans.. which is PERFECTLY in line with this! Everyone on the planet pictures the Kraken as a giant squid, even BEFORE modern science had FOUND a giant squid! (Untwist that logic, I'll wait. ;) )
-THEN I noticed an ASTOUNDING correlation. Let's look at the Hebrew passage:
-The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, | | and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
-The place where I separated the two statements is where it is commonly noted that the one does not NECESSARILY relate to the other.
-Now the next statement:
-And there we saw the Nephilim, || the sons of Anak, || who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
-WUT..? This appears to be describing three different groups of people.. unless we transliterate Nephilim to the literal giants.. THEN we can read it as describing two different races..
-And there we saw the Giants, the sons of Anak, || who come of the (old?) Giants; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.[12]
-I hereby offer the postulation that the ONE race of Giants, the SONS of Anak, commonly referred to as Nephalim (the Titans) were in the order of 100 feet tall. I offer that there was a SECOND race of Giants, the Anak of which Goliath was a party, in the order of twenty feet tall. This race of giants aligns with various other global cultural myths of giants around the world.. including the slightly ridiculous legend of the Annunaki.. if you translated it less loosely to mean 'aliens from some far fetched planet on an orbit around the sun which couldn't support life'. :D
-Is it following the scientific method precisely, well no, but it's logical without any far stretches of the imagination. Personally, I think the logic flows in a BEAUTIFUL ways with enough coincidences to make it a serious possibility by definition alone, let alone what appears to be some next-level genius on my part.
-Ok, I'm done here. That's my epiphany of the day. Take it for what it is, that's all I ask. :)
-...Ok, one final final thought.. did the Greek empire ever reach far enough that we could posit that Mt. Olympus was originally located in Israel? Ok, NOW I think I'm done making epiphanies for the day. :)
-[[User:Crogonint|Crogonint]] ([[User talk:Crogonint|talk]]) 23:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
-:Holy cow. I do not even know how to respond to this wall of text. Maybe if you slowed down and suggested some specific way to improve the article we could get somewhere. Maybe. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 00:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
-::I kind of doubt it. Any way we can get an admin to box this off so it doesn't take up the whole talk page?--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 02:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
-SERIOUSLY?? My first few points were rather basic and clear cut. That's why I put them at the top. Just exactly how is it too difficult to distinguish between an angelic being and a super-human one? Absolutely ludicrous.
-The rest of my initial points are just as remedial. Claiming that you can't follow them is revealing volumes about your character.
-If you can't follow my logic in the latter half, I can't fault you there. Occasionally my genius even surprises me. ^^
-I won't even bother complaining about the 'incomprehensible rant' label. Any sufficiently advanced technology could be labeled as magic. Similarly, I'll just assume that you're acting like heathens when you label my (rather short, actually) explanation as 'incomprehensible'.
-Whatever.
-Just trying to help you knowledgeable authors provide correct and discernible information that the masses can comprehend. If you're not capable of that.. perhaps you should just step down.
-[[User:Crogonint|Crogonint]] ([[User talk:Crogonint|talk]]) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
-:{{ping|Crogonint}} "Superhuman" means "more powerful than human."  The term predates "superhero" by a good bit.  Your post appears to be a mixture of [[Stream of consciousness]] and possibly copied dialogue (with no indication of who is saying what).  Please expand your vocabulary and be more concise instead of rambling and blaming others.
-:Wikis (including Wikipedia) are not accepted as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] because they are [[WP:USERG|user generated]] (not professionally published).  Creationwiki would qualify as a [[WP:FRINGE]] source.
-:[[WP:NOTFORUM|Wikipedia does not engage in original research]].  All we do is [[WP:CITE|cite]], [[Abstract (summary)|summarize]], and [[paraphrase]] [[WP:RS|professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources]].  [[WP:NOTFORUM|The talk page is for article improvement, not general discussion or tangents that are only apparently relevant to the person posting them]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 19:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
-::The "no original research" policy is to safeguard the slower editors like myself. If I had to be exposed to high-quality research like the above on a regular basis, I would feel sad and inadequate, and would have to leave Wikipedia in shame. But rephrasing stuff found in mainstream academic sources -- that I can handle. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
-{{collapse bottom}}
-== Nephilim (Nefilem) of Genasis 6:4 were Extraterrestrials ==
-I added... Some have claimed that the “sons of God” and/or the Nephilim of ''Genesis 6:4'' were aliens.<ref]https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c036.html </ref] [[Special:Contributions/2601:580:B:954A:158E:C2B3:2CC1:E91C|2601:580:B:954A:158E:C2B3:2CC1:E91C]] ([[User talk:2601:580:B:954A:158E:C2B3:2CC1:E91C|talk]]) 15:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 == Hebrew Bible translation ==
@@ Line 141: / Line 47: @@
 It is not a reliable account that nephilim existed post-flood. [[Special:Contributions/73.150.209.138|73.150.209.138]] ([[User talk:73.150.209.138|talk]]) 11:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
+== Fallen angels cannot be "sons of God" ==
+Without this making God their father. That is blasphemy of the worst kind. https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-27.htm And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges.
+ <sup>49</sup> Jesus, pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. <sup>50</sup> For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_12:49%E2%80%9350
+Fallen angels/demons are those who rejected God's commands.
+In Job 1:6, it says on a certain day the sons of God assembled before Him and Satan was there >also<. That means Satan is also not a son of God. If Satan is the chief of fallen angels then they must not be God's sons, either.
+<sup>6</sup> Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan<sup>[[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201%3A6-22&version=ESV#fen-ESV-12876a a]]</sup> also came among them. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:110A:15CB:ADF1:22E2|2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:110A:15CB:ADF1:22E2]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:110A:15CB:ADF1:22E2|talk]]) 16:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)