Talk:Nephilim/Archive 1

message: NOTE - The talk page format was not followed when various editors originally posted the following discussions, so this archive is not in chronological order. Some of the very first posts from 2004 are in the middle of the page. --Ghostexorcist 13:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

message: In the section of the article "In the Bible" there's some unatrributed claims.  
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 heroes of old, men of renown
That needs to be below the quote and not next to it.  That is commentary and not a part of the Bible.  
Secondly, on the commentary.  By itself, how is that quote a reference to the Nephilim?  It merely says that the sons of heaven (or in the King James translation, sons of God) came in to the daughters of men.  Other places in the Bible refer to human beings being the sons of God.  So, this does not mean by itself that angels came down and mated with humans.  Secondly, the passage never uses the word angel.  Thirdly, even if angel is attributed as the correct word for the sons of heaven/God even that does not necessarily imply
a literal physical angel with wings or whatever.  Perhaps it implies an angelic human being?  Eh?
Thirdly, we only connect this passage to (or mostly) Nephilim because of the Book of Enoch.  Was not Genesis written way before the Book of Enoch?  
Fourthly, the commentary below the Jude quote is inadequate and misleading. The wording in the King James Bible is 
1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
	(King James Bible, Jude)
There are a lot of "unnatural vices" as well as "going after strange flesh."  I'm sure you can think of several things on your own when you hear those phrases.  I see nothing to signify that this is talking about Humans wanting angel flesh.  
Also, again.  Consider the humans that we consider as angels.  Consider the priests and the holy people who give into temptation and go after vice.   Are they not leaving their first estate? Does this not conform to other parts of the bible.  There's no reason to authoritatively interpret this to mean actual physical angels.  The 2nd half of the sentence is metaphorical, there's no reason to assume that the 1st half isn't either.  
Bill Bisco
------------------
I don't really see what the problems are here. "At that time the Nephilim..." etc is from the Bible and is clearly referring to the Nephilim. This is pretty much the only time the Nephilim are addressed directly, and sure, it doesn't say 'At that time the Nephilim appeared on the Earth BECAUSE the sons of God went...' etc, but it is not unreasonable to make the connection, considering the wording and context.
What exactly is an 'angelic human being'? Would that not be like saying a 'feline human being'. You have angelic beings, and you have human beings. Apart from the Nephilim, never the two shall meet. The 'sons of God', although used to mean many things in the Bible, is often used to mean angel. Whether it means angel here or not, I'm not going to make any assurances, but it is not outside the scope of possibility to consider this. I'm not sure where your ideas of semi-angels (ie an angel, but not a literal angel with wings etc) come from, but I don't think they're particularly biblical.
In terms of the texts, it's hard to be sure what was written when. Everything was passed on and re-written and many stories were only passed on from person to person, never written. What we do know about the book of Enoch is that it was dismissed by the Jewish people mainly because it had a lot of messianic references, and it was dismissed by the Christians because it had a lot of mystical tones and had no points central to the Christian faith, so it has been largely ignored. In my experience of Christianity at least, a lot of people believe it to be a true holy text, but most believe it to be unimportant. But considering something as simple 'written before' is a very simplistic consideration of its authenticity.
And in terms of Jude, lets not forget that there is a pre-existing connection between Jude and Enoch in that the book of Jude specifically quotes Enoch. If that is not enough of a connection between the two, then look at the description of the prison for those angels - in everlasting chains under darkness. It bears a striking similarity to the prison which is described for the fallen watchers in the book of Enoch.
And which part is considered metaphoric? 'giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' If it's the eternal fire, that's one thing. Many would say that fire is literal, but it's moot because the eternal fire is the vengeance, the result. If we look at the actions that lead to that result, the fornication, going after strange flesh - these are surely literal. And they are considered to be the same actions that the angels took. So why would the actions of Sodom and Gomorrah be literal and the actions of the angels, which are not just sons of God, but literally angels here, be metaphoric.
I don't mean to be contrary, but I really see nothing no issue among the points you have raised.
Stev 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Perceived Problems with Article

message: The introductory paragraph should probably be edited in such a way as to summarize both the passages which are debated, and the reasons they are controversial.  Summarizing all the  interpretations (especially the more offbeat ones) is probably impossible even in a wiki article.If I were to rewrite the introduction I would suggest something like the following: Nephilim is a transliteration of the Hebrew word (הנּפלים, those causing others to fall) that occurs in two places in the Torah, and has given rise to a wide range of interpretations.  Genesis 6:1-4, speaking of the world before Noah's Flood, says that 
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,  the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.  Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years."  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-- and also afterward-- when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.  (NRSV)
Later, in Numbers 13:32-33, the spies that Moses sends to scout out Canaan report that:
"The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size.  There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (NRSV)
Demmeis 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Introduction

message: "In light of the alien abduction scenario, some have speculated a form of artificial insemination being implemented, which isn't necessarily comepletely impossible considering that one of the fallen angels named Tamiel (also called Kasyade) taught men the science of abortion." makes absolutely no sense. what does artificial insemination have to do with abortion?16:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're linked in a lot of peoples' minds, both having to do with human intervention into the reproductive cycles. Also, in the case of external fertilization and implantation, the remaining fertilized ova that aren't implanted need to be disposed of in some manner, so they're often destroyed in a manner consistent with abortion if one believes life to start after conception. -Fuzzy 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: huh?

message: Could "Sons of God" simply refer to human males descended from Adam, while "daughters of man" would refer to females born by humans?  The point of the passage would only mean that men and women would bear daughters who would proliferate the human race across the Earth; in some human villages, there would simply be taller or larger men who dwarfed the Hebrews in size, making them feel figuratively like insects.  This might refer to racial characteristics of other larger human beings who were seen for the first time in these areas.((response: No, tradition, history, archaeology, all confirm the bible when it describes nephilim and giants.  I included my email above, if you want to know more))
*Adam was the first human, not just the first Hebrew. The Hebrews came about after the flood, much later. Nephilim were before the flood. Peace.((response: And also after the flood, in Canaan))
::That's one interpretation. But given that Adam's son Cain goes off to the land of Nod and finds a wife there, it's not clear that all humans are descended from Adam. thx1138 12:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that were "given", but it's not...  There is no ancient tradition recorded anywhere that Cain "finds a wife there"...  There are plenty of ancient traditions recorded that Cain was allowed to marry his own sister (the prohibition against incest not applying until later)  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most ancient traditions record that Cain found a wife there. See the Midrash (not the article, the actual midrash). Many record that the wife he found there was lilith. --FDuffy 15:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a dumb question, it's quite reasonable I think.  Job 1:6 uses the same expression 'sons of God' when relating the events leading up to the afflictions of Job.  The sons of God (angels) were presenting themselves before the throne of God, including Satan, in the heavenly realm.  That the Genesis account also mentions that the sons of God and daughters of men had relations suggests it was a remarkable event and not what had been going on until then.  On the point about the line of Adam, regardless of what traditions say (and traditions say all sorts of things), the Biblical account states that he lay with his wife having travelled East, but not that he met her there.  --Recurring 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb question 

message: Nephilim (and seraphim, but that's irrelevant here) figure quite prominently in the plot of L'Engle's Many Waters. The book takes place around the flood ... Should it be included in Culture References?
'I believe so.  Please feel free to add it.64.145.137.34 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madeleine L'Engle's ''Many Waters'' 

message: There is a somewhat recent story in the X-Men comic book series which explains the Nephilim legends in the context of the Marvel Universe.  I beleive it should be added.  There is already information concerning this developement on the Nightcrawler and Mystique pages. 64.145.137.34 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marvel version have their own page now (Neyaphem) -- Noclevername 05:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men 

message: Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details about The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag follow.
In one of my favorite Heinlein stories, The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, the antagonists are a shadowy demonic crew who style themselves "the Sons of the Bird". They turn out to be creations of the "artist" who  has created our world (perhaps our whole universe?) as a work of art, but are now considered "bad art" that must be eliminated before the work is judged; this elimination takes place in apocalyptic (though cryptic) fashion at the end of the story.
The account here of the Flood being a reckoning for the Nephilim brought this story to mind. Is there any evidence whether Heinlein had it in mind? --Trovatore 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems extremely unlikely to me.  Heinlein was certainly familiar with the Bible, but his use of it in his stories is very rare, and is usually confined to very well-known figures, used in very straightforward ways (such as Job or Methuselah).  The Flood-Nephilim connection is not a common idea, and it seems very unlikely that Heinlein encountered it growing up in Bible-belt Missouri. — Lawrence King (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Flood-Nephilim connection is not a common idea"...  I take it you have never read the Book of Enoch, or very much related literature. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a myriad of specific verses that make this conenction quite explicit. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far from a modern invention, I just found the explicit Naphilim-Flood connection in Jub. 7:21-25, for instance. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, I did read bits of the various Enoch books and Jubilees, years ago.  But I didn't know this was in them.  So I agree with you that this is not a modern idea.  However, I certainly don't think that something is "common knowledge" because it was in these two books, and as I said earlier, there is no evidence that Heinlein's knowledge of Jewish or Christian theology or theological speculation went beyond what was common knowledge in his era of America. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sons of the Bird

message: The phrase "sons of God" is sometimes translated into English as "sons of gods". The Hebrew word, "Elohim", is a plural form, but is often used with single verbs and adjectives (as in this case) when the single meaning refers to the "Godhead."
I don't think this paragraph has anything to do with the article. The Nephilim have nothing to do with the Trinity discussion. You might as well put this note under every quotation of a Hebrew scripture that uses the word "Elohim." --216.45.139.148 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless Paragraph? 

message: Hi, I came across this page Gibborim (biblical) while surfing pages related to the comic book series runaways. I've been trying to improve it, but I'm having trouble separting true Judeo-Christian belief from new age belief. Now I realize that it might just be another name for this page.
Should I just give up and make it a redirect page, or should I continue. Any help would be appreciated. Stephen Day 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibborim 

message: Hello,I have noticed something very interesting,the article says "In the video game Diablo II: Lord of Destruction the Ancients Ones are referred to as "Spirits of the Nephilim"."Well,I just went in to my game and saw the long speech,the altar of the heavens said"We are the spirits of the NephAlEm,the Ancient Ones...(Insert whatever they said here)"so,my point is,Nephalem or Nephilim? --203.120.68.75 13:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nephalem or Nephilim?

message: "This has led to a great deal of confusion, even to the point of medieval legends recounted in the Talmud of a giant stowing away on Noah's Ark."
I hate to be a 'cite references nazi', but I'd kill for a reference on this one. I'm researching the subject for a screenplay I'm writing, and this is the only reference I can find to this story, although my knowledge of the Talmud is quite limited. Does anyone know where this has come from or where I can get more information on this story?
Stev 03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmud & the Stowaway Giant 

message: What is/would be the singular form in Hebrew? I assume Nephilim is a plural, like Elohim (I need this information for a work of fiction). Could someone provide the Latin (i.e. regular), Greek and, ideally, Hebrew script versions?
Thank youDavid Latapie (✒ | @) — www 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The transliteration of the above Hebrew (נפל) is N-F-L, so using the niqqud from נְּפִלִ֞ים (N-F-L'M. "Nephilim") it would be rendered "Nephil." Latin (Jerome's translation) is gigantes meaning "giant." Greek (Septuagint) is the same, just the Greek version (, "gigantes"). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular 

message: I've removed most of this. Some was blatant self-promotion, some was pure trivia. I'm not convinced that any of it that is left is 'culturally significant'.  WP:POPCULTURE says "should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." So, that still needs to be done for what's left. --Doug Weller (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug, if you're interested and have the time, the entire article needs to be re-written. It needs to begin with describing the oldest literature in which the term is used (Genesis, Jubilees, Enoch), the dates of these (all Second Temple), and the meaning of the word. The final article would be only a quarter the length of this. PiCo (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah, whoah, PiCo, how about including some of the other editors on this little project you just announced? Or is it one of those "exclusive" projects? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get mad Til - it was simply that Doug started the thread and I was replying. I have the greatest respect for your knowledge of Jubilees/Enoch, and anything you have to say is always of value. PiCo (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but the fact that it something is useful for someone's project has nothing to do with whether it should be in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia basically reporting on what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject. This does not mean that pop culture stuff shouldn't be in an article, but your needs are not a reason to include it. dougweller (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section 

message: I've reverted this. The bit about 'growing number' had no source. Superior Books and Xlibris are self-publishing houses  as is Anomalos  and ThinkAgain just seems to be the creation of the authors. dougweller (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits linking Nephilim to UFO phenomena 

message: Does anyone have a source for the statement that there is ambiguity about whether nephilim apply to the sons of God or the offspring? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for "ambiguity"? that nephilim can apply to sons of God

message: Are we sure we want to quote him? The man seems to be a complete nutter. There must be better people out there making the same point. PiCo (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, delete.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliyahu ben David 

message: The words "Mount Hermon" as seen on the main page, uses a font that confuses/merges the letter R and the letter M together. Some would take it as 2 letter N's. The same can be said when in some instances the number one and the small letter L are placed side by side, some fonts make both characters look exactly the same.
Mpau0516 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean in "summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon", I don't believe there is any choice of font. It might be your browser. You could ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. We can't change it. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There must be a better font 

message: Nephilim has a striking similarity with Albanian language word nefillim which means "in the biggining". Ne = in, fillim = beginning. Albanian language is a descendand of the old Pelazgic language in Balkans. It is thought to be the oldest language of Europe and root of most European languages. Someone with necessary knowledge should analyze and propose references to this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.53.86 (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and put your stuff at the bottom so it doesn't get lost with other people's posts.  Also, We don't analyze, we just report what reliable sources state.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian language claim 

message: Despite Evolutions rise, and the increase in more and more fossils being found. I just don't find them entirely separate.
Supposedly, Modern man showed up at least 100,000 years ago, and Neaderthals were around till 60,000 years ago. Hmmm... 
If you really really read the text in Discover Magazine (May 2011, Pages 48-55, 76) "you are not human" you'll get your science fact/fiction equivalent of this story. 
The article entails details that several migration of human ancestors left africa PROCEDING modern humans, 'those that came before' really left before us, we didn't leave them behind we just followed them out. and my final quote "They found that the Neanderthal Genome shows more similiarity with non-african modern humans throught Europe and Asia, than with African-modern humans, suggesting that the gene flow between us and Neanderthals most likely occurred outside Africa as humans were en route to Europe, asia, and new Guinea." My supposition, Since africa is where the evolutions accelerated, not only did we outgrow our neanderthal ancestors there through constant evolution that borders on the 'impossible' we bred back with them as we left.... Oh Wait this sound disturbingly close to the BIBLE~! better run away before some calls me a creationist. 
DISCUSS THAT HA!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.81.211 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not publish original thought, original research, or speculation. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Despite Evolution 

message: I accidently found “Niflheim” (one of the realms of Nordic tradition) looking for this page. A tag at the top of the page reading “Did you mean "Niflheim"?” should not hurt anything.174.25.129.229 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're false cognates, and from different mythologies, so... Unless they used near identical spellings in English, it really doesn't warrent a link based on one accident.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Niflheim Tag Request

message: I believe it would be apposite to quote the Jewish Publication Society's Torah, rather than a Christian source. Does anyone disagree? Leegee23 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why here? that would be tantamount to a policy decision across Wikipedia to only use the 1917 or 1985 JPS/NJPS. Scholarly works, whether Jewish/Christian/agnostic generally use the NRSV or ESV, but Wikipedia doesn't have a policy. If there's a particular Jewish or Protestant or Catholic edge to an article maybe. But then read WP:RS we aren't supposed to be relying on Primary Sources anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Scriptural Quotation 

message: Can we please have a Nephilim in popular culture like Lilith in popular culture fork? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More video games/comics blah blah

message: The lead seemed difficult to read and an attempt of mine to clean it up had been reverted.  But someone improved it since, thanks.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for improving the lead 

message: I believe it is important to also mention that in the Book of Enoch, the women that mated with the fallen angels became Sirens, half-bird and half-woman.Twillisjr (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a secondary source to establish that one translation choosing the word "siren" matters.  WP:No original research is used on this site, and that includes opinions.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirens = Mothers of Nephilim 

message: Are there true Nephilim fossils? These hybrids had probably flawed genetic structure? Maybe that's why they are huge. --AltıncıTas (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Editor2020 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll preface by stating that anything which appears in the article should reflect what is already published in reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:OR).  Anyways, if by "true Nephilim fossils," you are referring to the remains of a human-angelic (or human-extraterrestrial/alien) hybrid, the answer is that the scientific community does not recognize anything of the sort as legitimate.  Any assertions of this sort are regarded as pseudoscientific.  However, prior to the development of modern scientific paleontology, people occasionally stumbled across fossils while digging wells, foundations for buildings, etc..  Scientists can now easily recognize these as the bones of mammoths and other extinct animals, but at the time, this scientific understanding did not yet exist and the bones were sometimes labeled as belonging to an extinct race of giants.  If a reliable source can be found describing how a notable historical claim was made about a fossil discovery connecting it to the Nephilim, it could be worth mentioning in the article as a historical element in the interpretive history of the Nephilim tradition. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have indeed seen claims of fossil discoveries connected to the Nephilim, but they don't fall into the category of mammoth bones - such as claims of fossil discoveries of cone-head shaped skulls in Peru.  Do we have an article on that claim? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, if you will read the article carefully, the view that the Nephilim were part-human and part non-human hybrids is but one common view.  Another common and possibly older view is that they were hybrids of two human races stemming from Seth and Cain, who were fully human, though taller than their parents. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My responses: (1) We have an article about artificial cranial deformation that mentions the cone-head shaped skulls in Peru.  I am not aware of any reliable source which has associated these skulls with the Nephilim.  (2) The comment by AltıncıTas seemed to presuppose a non-human view of the Nephilim, so I answered accordingly.  I agree (and am already aware) that other interpretations of the Nephilim exist.  Regarding the Sethite and Cainite view, a mixing of two (purely human) ethnic groups would not produce skeletons that bear unusual characteristics identifying them as Nephilim, as these skeletons would look (and be) fully human.  That said, it is possible that some archaeologist/anthropologist has identified a historical ancient Near Eastern group or "mixture of groups" as being at the root of the Nephilim tradition.  If such an identification were made, then the archaeologically excavated skeletons of individuals belonging to that group could be deemed the remains of Nephilim in light of that presupposition.  If so, it could be worth mentioning in the article, but only if any such claim has been published in a WP:RS. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

text: You are correct.  The basic meaning of αγγελος (plural αγγελοι) is "messenger."  Occasionally the Greek Bible (Septuagint + New Testament) uses this word to refer to a human who acts in the capacity of a messenger.  For example, the Gospel of Mark 1:2 describes John the Baptist as an αγγελος.  The Greek Bible commonly applies it to spiritual beings who function as God's messengers, from which we get the English word "angel."  The pertinent question with regards to the article is whether it is appropriate to translate 'οι αγγελοι του θεου as "the angels of God."  Now I admit that I'm not an expert, and my Greek skills are shaky at best, but I'm following the precedent of some WP:RS which follow this translation: The Origin of Evil Spirits (pg. 207) and Exploring The Epistle Of Jude (pg. 127)  Choosing another translation for αγγελοι which lacks precedent in WP:RS would be WP:OR, unless one or more WP:RS defend the alternative translation.  In that case, it would be appropriate to note that the translation is a matter of scholarly controversy and present the various alternative renderings.  As an aside that may have some relevance in supplying some context, Deuteronomy 32:8 shows a similar textual difference: the Septuagint employs "angels of God," a DSS Hebrew Deuteronomy manuscript reads "sons of God" (and the Masoretic text has "sons of Israel")!  A scholarly source discussing this states that "'angels of God' and 'sons of God' are synonyms" (see A quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the explicit quotations in Hebrews). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossils of Giants 

message: Regarding the LXX Greek "Angels of God", if memory serves me correctly from Greek class years ago, aggeloi is also the Greek word for "Messengers" isn't it?  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  The basic meaning of αγγελος (plural αγγελοι) is "messenger."  Occasionally the Greek Bible (Septuagint + New Testament) uses this word to refer to a human who acts in the capacity of a messenger.  For example, the Gospel of Mark 1:2 describes John the Baptist as an αγγελος.  The Greek Bible commonly applies it to spiritual beings who function as God's messengers, from which we get the English word "angel."  The pertinent question with regards to the article is whether it is appropriate to translate 'οι αγγελοι του θεου as "the angels of God."  Now I admit that I'm not an expert, and my Greek skills are shaky at best, but I'm following the precedent of some WP:RS which follow this translation: The Origin of Evil Spirits (pg. 207) and Exploring The Epistle Of Jude (pg. 127)  Choosing another translation for αγγελοι which lacks precedent in WP:RS would be WP:OR, unless one or more WP:RS defend the alternative translation.  In that case, it would be appropriate to note that the translation is a matter of scholarly controversy and present the various alternative renderings.  As an aside that may have some relevance in supplying some context, Deuteronomy 32:8 shows a similar textual difference: the Septuagint employs "angels of God," a DSS Hebrew Deuteronomy manuscript reads "sons of God" (and the Masoretic text has "sons of Israel")!  A scholarly source discussing this states that "'angels of God' and 'sons of God' are synonyms" (see A quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the explicit quotations in Hebrews). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  aggeloi 

message: A section of the article currently reads (in part): "The Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) fragment 4Q417 (4QInstruction) contains the earliest known reference to the phrase "children of Seth", stating that God has condemned them for their rebellion. Other early references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain, are found in...."  A WP:OR tag was recently removed from this section (diff).
It's obviously true that 4Q417 mentions the "children of Seth" (though the assertion that it's the "earliest known reference" should really be supported by a reference).  The text also mentions "carnal spirits" who "did not know the difference between good and evil according to the judgment of [God's] spirit."  It is plausible that the textual contrast between the children of Seth and the "carnal spirits" means that its author would have agreed with the "mingling" view.  But as far as I can tell, the text nowhere states this explicitly, or has anything at all to say about the Nephilim.  Hence it's not clear from the text itself how its author would have understood Genesis 6:1-4.  However, the article's current text implies that 4Q417 supports the view that the children of Seth mingled with the daughters of Cain.  I'm inclined to attach a WP:SYNTH tag to this, unless a reliable source analyzing 4Q417 makes this connection for us.  (My reading of 4Q417 is based on A New Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg and Cook (2005).) --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that a book came out in 2012, Forbidden Theology: Origin of Scriptural God by Miles Navarre that mentions on p. 252 that 4q417 contains the earliest known reference to "children of Seth" and connects it to the mingling view (with Cain's daughters that is.)  This  information is not necessarily dependent on us, at any rate, it's in the annals of literature. I am certain "carnal spirits" can refer only to humans, "carnal" is latinate for "fleshly" and the corresponding Aramaic idiom certainly means humans. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Forbidden Theology: Origin of Scriptural God qualifies as a WP:RS.  Flipping through the book's introduction and table of contents via the Google Books preview, the author states that he owes all his "personal illumination" to Zecharia Sitchin, Erich von Daniken, Graham Hancock and others of that ilk....and the book seems to make Sitchin-like claims about the Annunaki.  A more scholarly source would be (much) preferable for the purpose of citations.  What you are saying here may indeed be correct, but like you said, it doesn't depend upon us, but rather upon what the reliable sources state. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I didn't spend enough time finding one of the more scholarly sources that discusses this... Went in a little deeper and got one before long: in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiental Thought (2002), p. 399: "The mythological tradition adopted in 4Q417 1 I 15ff. on the primeval apostasy seems to be a parallel to the tradition of the fall of the watchers which is basically rooted in Gen. 6,1f4 and expanded in 1 En 15.[footnote]"  This shows that scholars are well aware of this correspondence and the relevance of the passage, even though curiously this one utterly neglects to mention the fact that 4Q417 says anything about the "children of Seth", who are often identified with the "watchers". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wait, yes he does, on p 393, where he also says when the sons of Seth fell into iniquity at this time, the pious im ruah "people of spirit" or sons of God ("obedient angels") included Enosh, and the "ruah bashar" or spirits of flesh are the "sinful humanity". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for investigating this.  If you have the time, it would be good if you could add this reference to the section. --Mike Agricola (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offspring of Seth. 

message: Should we have a short section at the end mentioning that Nephilim have been the basis for many crazy/conspiracy theories?   While the theories themselves are clearly non-verifiable, the fact that they exist and have become a minor culural influence certainly is.  (For example I first came here while doing some background reading on conspiracy theories to base a prog rock album on -- I very much doubt they are true but they make for great story material.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.219.110 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can be mentioned provided it is a) reliably sourced, and b) specifically mentions the article topic, Nephilim. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be, per WP:WEIGHT, yes, but small sourced and last. But I'm a bit concerned that such a section will be a bad edit magnet. It's easier to blank stuff than have a special fringe section and police it. We already had to fork off Nephilim in popular culture because of the constant barrage of IP additions. Why not spend time and energy actually correctly sourcing the real stuff in the article until it gets to something like the ABD entry on Nephilim. The ABD doesn't have a special fringe and fruit paragraph at the end, why should Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey I was going to say that! I agree entirely. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For a long time we were assured that "fringe" was not a reason not to cover something, but now it seems the concept of "fringe" is gradually being extended to mean "we should not give any coverage, period."  Once again, if it is reliably sourced and on topic, there should be darned good reason to exclude it, since in many cases "fringe" is used as a rhetorical phrase boiling down to "I personally don't like it and don't wish these sources to be mentioned."  The recent edits did not have any sources that were on topic as they apparently made no mention of "Nephilim", and were correctly reverted.  It does seem like the section on "conspiracy theories" might fit the scope of Nephilim in popular culture better than here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's an issue over where to cover it. It's at Sitchin and the popular culture article. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention crazy theories? 

message: There are two large charts in the article which present English, Hebrew, and Latin translations of a few verses concerning Nephilim. I propose that we take out the charts, and replace them with simple English quotations, because this is after all English Wikipedia. If there are any particular details of Hebrew or Latin texts that are discussed in reliable sources, we can summarize the issues involved in English and then link to the reliable sources involved. But it seems to me that we shouldn't simply arbitrarily show passages in this parallel form on Wikipedia. Seems like overkill. Anybody agree?Alephb (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I feel better about this page already.Alephb (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest we remove the charts 

message: The article opens with two quotes about the Nephilim, almost but not quite identical, to material on an outside website that some relatively unknown group put online. It also claims that "some Bibles" translate as "giants or titans." Calling Nephilim titans is an odd way to import a word from Greek mythology into the Hebrew Bible, and I'm pretty sure that no reputable mainstream Bible translation (any one used by large numbers of scholars, Christians, or Jews) would make that move. As far as I can tell, the only reference given for the "titans" options is the apparently self-published website (see [[WP:SELFPUBLISH). So my intention is to replace the quotes with quotes from a more reputable translation of the Bible, one used by scholars, and to scrub the claim about "titans" until some non-fringe, non-self-published Bible translation can be found that uses "titans." Alephb (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. The first quote isn't actually limited to the verses cited for it. Alephb (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, please do. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alephb, you might be interested in the comments on this talk page from 2010. The merry joker is no longer around, but the eye-blinking gentleman is, and he's very learned. PiCo (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just saw the list of pages the eye-blinker has started, and it's incredible. As for the merry joker, I was aware that he was gone, but I do seem to run into threads that include him once a week. Alephb (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Two Opening Quotes, and "Titans" 

message: In the subject line, why I stated this is because it is true.
The article Nephilim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim) I added referenced edit that is constantly deleted because the author at Wikipedia don't want anybody to correct any mistakes he/she made. they would rather have lies and half truths in their articles, then the truth. They will next be putting that little green men from Mars is breeding with humans. 
On their home page they put "anyone can edit." which is a lie for as I said only a select group can edit an article, unless it is a period, or some low level nonsense. 
In the above article I put the edit "The word nephilim by the Hebraic/Aramaic (the original language of the Old Testament and not a translation) has the root meaning of "to fall". The meaning of the word has two meanings: 1. "to fall upon others in rapine violence"; a tyrant; a bully; a dictator. 2. "apostates fallen from true religion" (see Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, or New Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, or other such books)." Wilson's Word Studies is equal to Webster's Dictionary. So, this referenced work which critical to the article is not allowed because the staff does not want anything from outsiders to change, or correct their work. They would rather have half truths and lies. This edit gives a referenced concrete definition according to the original language and shows what is written, and Wikipedia doesn't want it in their article for they keep deleting it. THEY KEEP DELETING THE TRUTH THAT IS REFERENCED VIABLE WORK EQUAL TO WEBSTER"S DICTIONARY, AS SUCH THEY WOULD HAVE DENY WEBSTER"S DICTIONARY, WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA, ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA, ETC, AS VIABLE, ACCEPTABLE REFERENCED WORKS FOR EDITS.
I recently was in a discussion with a person about this article. They had asked me why this definition wasn't in the Wikipedia article and that since it wasn't it must not be true. As such Wikipedia deliberately is keeping people from editing articles with referenced works that contribute to and gives truthful information so that an article gives lies that people swear by because they don't research the information themselves, rather they say since Wikipedia says so it is so, when it is a lie A FRAUD.
I have spent more then 2 decades studying this subject (the Flood story of the Bible) and other stories and science. Yet, Wikipedia in their bid for power and control doesn't recognize, nor accept referenced documented material to be added to their articles, for how dare anyone challenge their power. If one goes on the internet they will find many articles on the descent of Wikipedia from the original design of it's creator to an oligarchy (a small group of people (governing body) who hold power and control; i.e. a dictatorship).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.88 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no staff editors. I should have said that your last statement was unsourced. Your explanations of the meaning of the word contradicted the rest of the article and most other sources. Can you both quote Wilson and show us other sources meeting WP:RS who agree? We would need that to meet WP:UNDUE. And what is Hebraic/Aramaic? The Hebrew Bible is written mainly in Biblical Hebrew, with a few bits in Biblical Aramaic. I believe that the word 'Nephilim' is only written in Biblical Hebrew. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wilson's Word Studies is equal to Webster's Dictionary." Nonsense. It's just another obscure 19th century book about the Bible. Alephb (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia staff won't allow referenced work that adds to an article, thus dening truth and making that article and their work a power play and a fruad.