Posted on 11/27/2001 5:41:01 AM PST by Sir Gawain
20-Nov-2001
Dear Straight Dope:
Who or what were the giant sons of God (Nephilim) mentioned in the Bible and what happened to them? Depending on the author, they are refered to as sons of Seth, angels, aliens, monsters, and "weird hybrid offspring" that may have been wiped out in the flood. Were the ancient scribes jealous because they were just the big guys that got the good looking daughters? --Michael K.
SDSTAFF Dex replies:
Let's quote the text from Genesis 6. This is my own translation, combined from several sources, trying to retain the literal text. I'm telling you, at the Straight Dope you're dealing with professionals:
When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also after that, when the sons of God cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
This is one of the strangest accounts in Genesis, and there is no certain explanation. The Hebrew text is obscure, possibly deliberately so, to downgrade any mythic tone. In the first chapters of Genesis, human beings strive to become divine, and God intervenes, so that mankind cannot be immortal. Here, the reverse happens, divine beings lower themselves to the level of humans, and again God intervenes.
It is very likely that the passages are only a fragment of what was once a longer narrative, or commonly told tale. Presumably, the Nephilim were described as "heroes of old" based on popular stories and tales. Depending on who you think wrote the text, either the longer story was lost by the time the Redactor got to editing the various texts centuries later, or Moses left out popular and well-known stories about ancient times and just referenced them in a way that appears cryptic to us.
Almost all pagan mythologies abound with legends about intercourse between gods and mortal women, and between goddesses and mortal men, producing demigods or heroes as children. There is also a common mythology that there once existed a race of men of gigantic stature of strength. The story here seems similar, but is still consistent with the overriding theme of monotheism: there is only one God who makes decisions. The offspring of such unions may have been heroic, but they are not divine, they are flesh and blood like all humans ("since he too is flesh"). The one God controls the breath of life.
So, for a start, who are the "sons of God"? The most popular interpretation is that they are divine beings, the angelic host, the celestial court, a poetic image taken from the analogy of human kings surrounded by their entourage. The term "the host of heaven" is also sometimes used in the Bible to mean the same thing.
Some translators use "sons of the great," since the term elohim in the Psalms often means "mighty." It would also be possible to read it as "sons of the gods," but that would be inconsistent with the monotheism of the text. On the other hand, "sons of God" may simply mean those who serve and love God. One interpretation is that the children of Seth are sometimes called "sons of God," and then the "daughters of men" might imply the daughters of Cain.
So, I repeat, the text is extremely unclear. By the way, note the implication that the sons of God are driven by lust (they are attracted to the mortal women by their beauty rather than their personalities or moral character). And, lest your mind wander in the gutters, the term is definitely "took wives," meaning were married--there is no implication of rape or coercion.
And, now, who were these Nephilim? The plain reading of the text indicates that they are the offspring of the misalliances between the divine beings and the daughters of men. The term "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days" would thus mean that the union of the sons of God and daughters of man gave birth to them. However, it is possible that the Nephilim existed separate from the intermarriages, and the term "were in the earth in those days" just sets the time-frame as antediluvian. (Hah! I've always wanted to use that word in context!)
The word Nephilim itself unclear; the obvious root N-F-L would imply they are "fallen ones," that is, fallen angels. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Torah, from about 200 BC) translates Nephilim as "giants," likely based on the reference in Numbers 13:33 (see below) that Nephilim were "of great size." Thus, the term is commonly translated as giants or heroes.
I don't know if this helps you much. Who the Nephilim and the "sons of God" were is a matter of conjecture and interpretation, and there are lots of different interpretations. As to what happened to them, at least here we have consensus: they did not survive the Flood. The Flood story comes hot on the heels of these verses, and so the conjunction of the two stories implies the Nephilim and the marriage of the divine and mortal beings was part of the wickedness that was destroyed by the Flood.
As a footnote, the word Nephilim appears significantly only one other time in the Bible.
In Numbers 13:32-33, the Israelites send advance spies to scout out the land of Canaan. The spies report that "All the people we saw in it are men of great size; we saw the Nephilim there--the Anakites are part of the Nephilim--and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them." Now, the problem with this description is that, if the biblical narrative is consistent, then the Nephilim would not have survived the Flood, so how would they have been around for the spies to see? The answer is that the spies were trying to instill fear in the hearts of the people, to discourage them from invading the land, and so they used poetic exaggeration. The term Nephilim was used for dramatic effect, as the term "Huns" was used to indicate Germans during the World Wars, centuries after there were no longer true Huns.
--SDSTAFF Dex Staff Reports are researched and written by members of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil's online auxiliary. Although the SDSAB does its best, these articles are edited by Ed Zotti, not Cecil, so accuracywise you'd better keep your fingers crossed.
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
Interesting how a conversation can pick up after 4 years without a hitch . . .
:')
ok, the story as i remember it is that when God created adam, he also created lilith- not from adam, but also of the earth. lilith refused to be a servant to adam and ended up leaving him. there's a whole bunch of stories to what happened to her, copulations with demons, deaths of those children prescribed by God, her vows to kill children of God in return. there are other stories of cain seeking her out after his banishment and of them coupling. the giants are generally assumed to be her offspring, most commonly guessed as being issue of lilith and cain. this is where the giant goliath is believed to have come from.
FWIW, Im not a proponent of "political/religious archaeology". I do not bring the subject up to attempt to give validity to any of the peripheral subjects someone is always trying to throw into the discussion of "giants" (space aliens/"lost tribes"/Mormonism/fallen angels/etc).
Keep in mind that these discussions are always colored by the political agenda of the writers and the political sensitivities of the day. If you have followed the subject of Kennewick Man from his discovery to the clashing camps of racist hysteria to its present politically correct working theory of the Ainu then you know what Im referring to. By bringing the subject up, I do not intend to suggest that any theories you may read related to the lives of these "giants" are representative of my own (race, color, status, abilities, sexual tendencies, preference for Pepsi vs Coke, etc).
My only interest in the subject is that there is IMHO overwhelming worldwide evidence of an important story that everyone is presently afraid to touch.
I followed Mr. Jeeves' link, found this, and many thanks:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=751
[snip]
The venerable New York Times contributed to this deception when their Seattle-based reporter Tim Egan was assigned to fluff the "Father of Bigfoot" story into a New York Times cover story. Egan (possibly at the behest of NYT editors) blatantly and deliberately misquoted the three scientists he interviewed for the story -- Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, Dr. Matthew Johnson, and Dr. Jeff Meldrum.
Egan claimed all three of them "credited Wallace" with creating the first publicized track casts that gave rise to the legend. Fahrenbach and Johnson say, in their brief conversation with Egan, they made it very clear that Wallace didn't give rise to the legend, and they didn't know anything about Wallace's possible involvement with those first publicized track casts. Dr. Jeff Meldrum told Egan that he could prove that Wallace did not fake those first track casts.
Egan challenged Meldrum on this point. Meldrum said the proof was readily apparent in the photos -- the shape of the track cast doesn't match the shape of the Wallace track stompers (see above).
Egan's cover story in the New York Times didn't mention the discrepancy plainly visible in the photos.
Egan's challenge to Meldrum on the track shape issue suggests two things: 1) Not only was Egan well aware that Meldrum didn't give Wallace credit for hatching the legend. 2) It seems Egan (and possibly the NYT editor) had already decided what they wanted to say in this cover story. They only needed to attribute the right quotes to some experts to make it work. When those experts couldn't be coaxed into making those statements, Egan simply said they did.
When the three experts later demanded a correction or retraction for Egan's distortions, the New York Times ignored them -- three Ph.D's.
This occured when the Jason Blair scandal was already brewing at the New York Times but before it was publicized. The Times was desirous to pin unethical practices soley on Blair, and not let it seem widespread among its reporters.
Fahrenbach, Johnson and Meldrum still claim Egan blatantly and intentionally misquoted them. Other environmental reporters at other newspapers say Egan has done similar things before. Tim Egan has never been investigated about this, or at least the three misquoted experts have never been contacted by the Times to investigate the matter.
[unsnip]
...Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Abominable Snow Man
A blast from the past. What an old thread to revisit.
The first I ever heard of the Nephilim was when reading Madeleine L'Engle's "Many Waters". It's a sort of time travel concept that takes place just before the Great Flood. Very interesting reading.
If the sons of Seth were the righteous line, who did they marry?
Indeed, who DID Cain and Able marry?
Again, I think its a mistake to take everything in the Bible verbatim, literally.
The Bible is replete with parables, symbolism and other obscure praseology like this.
On the other hand, there are passages within it that are QUITE clear on their meaning - particularly with respect to the coming Saviour, the Resurrection and salvation, as well as to the existence of Angels, Satan, and homosexuality as an abomination.
There is also that very strange story about Isaac (??) wrestling with God.
mark for later reading
Or Cromagnum
Apparently Able did not marry as Cain killed him before he had children.
How do we know that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.