Genesis 6a: The Nephilim
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Thanks to scholars Ben Stanhope and Chris Hansen for reviewing this video.
Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Ben Stanhope's video: • The Nephilim Explained...
Michael S. Heiser - The Unseen Realm
Michael S. Heiser - Reversing Hermon
John Walton - NIV Application Commentary
James Pritchard - Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament
Paul Copan and Douglas Jacoby - Origins
Meredith Kline - Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4
Nahum M. Sarna - Understanding Genesis
Kenneth A. Matthew - The New American Commentary: Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 11:26
Alexander Heidel - The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels
Michael S. Heiser - Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God
Richard Gabriel - "Soldiers" Lives Through History
John Walton, Mark Chavalas, Victor Matthews - The IVP Bible Background Commentary
Jean Bottero - Mesopotamia
If you like this video remember to support us on patreon or through PayPal: inspiringphilosophy.org/donate/
Love your videos.
Pls, a Bitchute channel
You are awesome!!
Do you have any plans on coming out with a book?
Do you believe the Genesis Gap theory? It says that there was a gap between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 and they who believe it they say that only KJV Bible can give this. Except that I want say, when you talk about a cultural context in the Bible then sometimes I feel that God didn't give his holy spirit to the authors.
IP, you have been a fine example to young aspiring apologists (and Christians in general) of just how important it is to do thorough and quality research. God has called you and gifted you and has used you in a very compelling way. Keep up the kingdom work!
Thank you!
I’ve been a Christian my whole life and watching your videos over the past year has helped me view the Bible better as history and less like stories of superheroes. I really appreciate what you’re doing, my faith has never been stronger.
But Atheist Superheros is where they were originated from Christian theology.
I think my faith is stronger if not only Jesus Christ exists and has and still does in heaven obviously but what's not obvious to me if angelic beings exist. If giants don't exist then I'm doubting angels exist. Thanks Michael Jones you screwed me up theologically!
@Israel Country Cube We have giant people today. If you look up videos on David and Goliath, a lot of people say Goliath had a condition. Angels and demons are real. They exist as spiritual beings, which you normally can't see. God allowed me to see both. It only happened once, but it eliminated my doubts about spirits existing.
nephilim are gods
ditto to all of that. the first video that i watched from this channel was about Genesis 3a: the serpent - which always baffled me as I thought it to be a strange and dark story. He helped me understand the text and its significance on every level.
Thank you for all you do. I went through a period of intense doubt a few years back. It was yourself, Dr. Craig, and Frank Turek that helped pull me out of it.
The book of Enoch sheds light on the subject and was found in the Dead Sea scrolls.
Dead sea scrolls are very important documents..many viewed not canon but we believe those writings completely related to present bible writings and i believe are inspired.
Do know why 'The book of Enoch' is not in the Bible? Pretty much denays everything Jesus said in the new testament.
@@FilipCordas It is if your part of the Slavonic or Ethiopian Churches, then it is canon. Ethiopians were Jews, whom preserved the pre Ezra rabbinic reformed Judaism which considered Enoch as Canon.
@@user-gy5er6wh2j Book of Mormon is part of Church of church of latter day saints so it's cannon too right?
@@FilipCordas could you please point out a couple examples where it denies what Jesus said in the new testament for reference?
Josephus recorded that the giants bones of the nephillim were still on display in his time - a primary historical account!
I found what they're referencing. It's in Josephus' _Antiquities_ (trans. William Whiston), Book 5, Chapter 2, Section 3, Line 125: "For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. *The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any creditable relations of other men."*
Interesting note: In _Antiquities_ Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 1, Line 73, it reads: "...for many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, That these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants."
There is a note on the word angels here, which reads: "This notion, that the fallen angels were, in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity." Josephus also says Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span in tallness..." (_Antiq._ 6.9.1, [171]).
@@AncientCampfire Thank you!
There was no modern archeology in those days. You are gullible to believe their opinion. Catholics have for centuries believed that they possess the bones of the apostles and other saints, the Vatican still tries to promote this today.
@@tmk7775 they had astronomers that could see Saturn 3000 years ago in sumeria, they also had primitive but effective tools to excavate artifacts back in ancient times as well.
@@tmk7775 david fought against nephilim
Love your work but I am not convinced this time around.
It's alright. We all have our different perspectives
What your interpretation?
@@htoodoh5770 she thinks angels got horny, started having sex with human females and gave birth to giant monsters
It's amazing how many people actually believe this
Agreed. Jude 1 is clear about why the Angels are in prison.
@@cv4809
Are you a Christian?
Thank you for the thorough explanation. This has been very helpful for me. Keep up the great job!
I really love this series and can't wait for the future. God bless IP!
In order to understand scripture you must understand that there are levels to every verse. The literal interpretation, the hinted interpretation, and the mystical/prophetic meaning. Blessings in Yeshua to everyone reading this!
YES!! I’m so happy to finally hear someone else with this interpretation that seems so obvious when you read carefully and understand the context. THANK YOU!
ua-cam.com/video/Jrh0tHfKg4w/v-deo.html
All scholars that actually specialize in this area DISAGREE with IP argument. It's honestly not even debatable. Jude, Peter, ALL the Jews, and ALL of the old testament scholars DIDagree with IP. But it's you tube so many of yall will believe him vecause yiu won't read for yourself. Sry but contextually you don't stand a chance. Neither does he BUT HE WILL GET CLICKS BY USING HEISERS NAME AND THE GENESIS 6/ NEPHILIM bait. I have unsubscribed because this is nit the first time he has allowed a creed/ denomination (catholic) to influence his interpretation.
I can't imagine another interpretation of this, I'm sorry. Mad respect but the divine element to it, to me, makes more sense. Since I think this is reading the text without the larger context and is more of an appeal to thematics. I get where you're coming from, but the deciding factor to make is the ANE context of the Apkallu, Joshua's conquest and the Extrabiblical texts or deuterocanonical books. Books with as much ANE context to detail the fall of First Kingdom Isreal and talk about themes regarding it.
Not to mention the New Testament has Jesus exorcising demons at Joshua's conquest site, which strengthens the association with 1 Enoch (the BC Enoch) stating that Nephilim spirits roam the earth. Leviticus mentions Azazel in regards to the scapegoat. Even though 1 Enoch has the wrong height for Nephilim due to it's interaction with Greek legends, when 5 foot tall humans are facing off against 8 to 9 foot tall humans, it's weird and a big deal.
I know you've converted and are more "careful" in your studies. I was just born, with some skepticism, of the supernatural. I can understand the association of this thinking and racism. The racism arguments need not apply since the Nephilim as a concept aren't so much a race of people as much as a psudeo-human and it's not associated with race.
The question of a supernatural/non-supernatural perspective of the old testament is not dependent on the supernatural views of the new testament. The new testament not only came at a time of supernatural influence from Greek and Roman genre texts, but also is riddled with further mystical interpolations and redaction of the Constantine Era church and possibly some gnostic tradition. The earliest texts of the new testament have a considerably less supernatural purview.
@@deluxeassortment I would have to disagree. The oldest existing manuscript of the four gospels is John found at Qumran, dating decades after the speculated traditional date of the book (early 90AD). It could be easily argued that John is the most supernatural based text of the four gospels, while predating Christian Gnosticism by a century.
As for the OP's comment. You should read Hieser's "Reversing Hermon". There are passages in the epistles that make no sense, the one 1 Peter for example, but are clearer with a second spiritual rebellion in mind.
Sorry 2 Peter 2
@@nealheadley50 I don't mean to say that Gnosticism had an affect on the original gospels, just on later manuscripts. There are many supernatural elements that disappear as you go back to the earliest manuscripts. In fact, the ressurection account is completely absent from the earliest manuscript of Mark we have.
But my point was it doesn't matter how supernatural the new testament is, it was written after the old testament, and thus had had no influence in it. If you mean to say that the perspectives of new testament writers speak for the perspectives of the old testament writers, I disagree there. for the simple fact that 700 years had passed and not only is there an enormous potential for theology change there, but consider the drastic change in interpretation that occurs with such a tunnel-visioned view of their writings and history!
@@nealheadley50 Also, the oldest manuscript is P52 John , and it is so small that nothing can be said about its original text. I think it is like 2 inches
I honestly never even interpreted Genesis 6:3 as a judgement or punishment... I always assumed it was Him warning the sons that they will outlive the attractive human wives they're taking, kind of like the same way Elrond warns his daughter about what will happen if she stays in middle earth with Aragorn.
I agree -- it is not a hill worth dying over. Still, I agree with your assessment. The logic seems sound (following the parallels and letting the passages speak for themselves). Keep up the outstanding work!! I can't wait to see the next one.
@@GnosticTheist "mistaken" no one said that only you have. Simply Jude and Peter were using parallels or stories to give understanding to theological facts that to the masses at those times who know of thoses stories and thus be able to understand what Jude and Peter were saying.
@@GnosticTheist lame word play
@@clowney28 nowhere in those passages does it suggest that Jude or Peter are using "stories" to make their points. They are clearly stating something they believe to be fact, that Angels committed sins and are being held for punishment. The Holy Spirit guided them to write what they wrote, why dismiss it? It would be one thing if they told us that they were saying that these were just stories or parallels, but they are saying these things actually happened.
The term sons of God is also used in the Book of Job. When the sons of god went to Gods throne and SATAN came with them. Also this guy saying only humans got focused and received punishment. In Peters letter to the church he wrote the the angels who sinned against god were not sparred but cast into chains of darkness to be held for judgement. That’s no referring to Satan and his angels. It’s referring to the watchers. The angels who slept with the daughters of men.
I love these videos. Really well done in both script and video work. Thanks a ton. My bit of input is this: the difference between Jesus' parables and Jude and Peter's (as you claim, fiction to make a theological claim) is: Jesus wasn't quoting anyone with parables. He was making up fiction to make a point. Jude and Peter are quoting other authors. You've got to prove these other writings are false or are fiction. e.g., the Book of Enoch and the Testament of Moses. Not being inspired scripture does not make them fiction. What makes Heiser's position easy to lean toward is he seems to assume these things were written because they were taken as true. In my mind, if your position is to dismiss the strong evidence of Jude and Peter on the basis of "they're using fiction" so heavily weighted with conjecture, it unravels all your objections prior. It would be better to settle for Jude and Peter are problems with your position and we just have to hold the tension until more information is understood or revealed.
I’m not super well educated on this subject and I agree with you that it’s definitely not a hill worth dying on and either interpretation doesn’t change the overall message.
Excellent video here
My sentiment exactly. If we all would take this energy to study the entire Bible consistently, perhaps we Christians would emit our light more brightly.
Great video. Thanks for showing your view, but I respectfully disagree. There is other information out there that bridges the gap in Genesis 6. Why would God have to punish the angels? What did they do to displease God. If you explained why God punishes the angels, this video wouldn’t have been this long. I do understand and love your perspective though.
This passage actually created me some problems. Thank you very much for explaining it.
Of note: "giants" in some languages doesn't mean large physical size. For example "giants" in Norse belief were ontologically the same as gods/aesir and vanir, and even dwarves. I suspect something similar is happening here and there is a connotation of different spiritual status but not necessarily physical size.
That is by far the best argument I’ve ever read/heard. I leaned towards the divine being interpretation but it still didn’t sit well. The argument you presented makes the most sense. Thank you for your effort.
Also Enoch 1 expands on the punishment of the watchers for their transgressions with Humans. It’s imperative to understand the cultural perspective that Scripture was conceived in. Something Heiser excellently does in his holistic approach.
I have a couple of questions for you.........
1. Was Gilgamesh 100% human? Goliath? King Og?
2. What (lesser) (g)ods did YHVH defeat in Egypt?
For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.
Exodus 12:12 (ESV)
3. What ancient goddess was given the title, "Queen of Heaven?" Was she human?
4. Were Chemosh, Molech and Ba'al human?
5. Who were the seven Sage's / Apkallu in ancient Sumer?
I'd like to know more about what you've written here. Can you provide some links or names of sources? Thanks
@@marijelaneslanovic4887
The best "all around" scholar in this area is without question, Dr. Michael Heiser. All of his lectures are free on YT, he has several YT channels that he participates with, Fringe Pop 321, Sentinel Apologetic s, etc. He also keeps transcripts on his website.
There are lots of great authors out there who are diving into this topic.....but some rely too heavily on external sources, in my opinion. I am very comfortable listening to Dr. Heiser's lectures then researching for myself to verify his information. Heiser sticks to the text.
I would watch "the Divine Council" first.......then "Supernatural or Unseen Realm."
Enjoy.
@@kcp2967 thank you very much
Perhaps the Sons of God were those who had become “enlightened” but by their actions, fell from grace.
That is reasonable imo. I have read and heard one meaning of nephilim refers to 'the fallen ones' .
There are few instances (perhaps only 1 instance) of the septuagint saying goliath was 4 cubits and a span. This was likely a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe, not the norm for all manuscripts. The dimensions and weight of goliath's armor and weapons would be disproportionate if he were only 6.5 feet tall. That interpretation is inaccurate. I'm not trying to put you down, I just think you are mistaken about that point.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his commentary also understood the passage to be talking about human kings who were taking whatever women they pleased. He related it to the two times for Abraham and the once for Isaac that they passed off their wives as their sisters in order to avoid being killed by the Pharaoh or king. It wasn't just a matter of polygamy, but that in the king's arrogance they took the women without the idea that the consent of the women themselves meant anything. And it could be lethal for the woman's husband if she already had one. It had to be quite a problem if the subterfuge of wife as sister to avoid getting killed gets recounted three times in Genesis.
Amen and I agree. Sound teaching that I have believed for a while now but you put it beautifully for me to understand better. God continue to bless you brother 🙏
This is going to sound weird, however, If angels could effectively mate with human women, then they would have to follow biology, thus requiring semen produced from testicles, etc. So if angels have semen, do they have blood? Do they have glands? etc. No way one can make that inference without assuming more than the Bible clearly states. And now I'm going to wash my hands because just typing this makes me feel icky. That is all.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology and we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind” and why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
@@KenAmmi-Shalom I appreciate the reply. I'll pick up a copy of the book and look forward to reading it. As for early scholarship, admittedly I have only read Philo of Alexandria who does seem to support the fallen angels perspective.
Yes, when described as humans, angels are represented as masculine, 100% of the time. However, there is a massive jump from angels saving Lot or wrestling with a patriarch TO MATING with human women. It's also a massive jump to say we are of the basic "kind", without categorizing likenesses and differences. I mean, angels are celestial, immortal beings in form and spirit. Whereas, we can agree that humans have immortal spirits and temporal bodies.
There is enough evidence presented that 'sons of God' could be a reference to human men. PS 82:6, MAL 2:10, etc.
Back to the question of anatomy, you're right, an angel can have the complete make-up of humanity: cells, blood, liquids, skin, etc.
So, if the literal interpretation is true, then what prevents angels from continuing this practice? Also, what then, does this speak of God and His armies of angels' involvement from protecting humans from evil angelic oppression?
Such a small mention in the bible does not have enough merit to project such a deep ontological foundation of angels. However, I'm we can agree that the whole point of the chapter is to point towards the progressive evil of mankind, the judgment and accompanying promise and Christ's salvation. What is not contended, I think, is the primary focus on the concepts of sin, judgment, hope and renewal.
@@d454b Well friend, those aren’t jumps, they are logical and bio-logical conclusions.
“massive jump to say we are of the basic ‘kind’” which you assert was done, “without categorizing likenesses and differences” but I did just that already, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions” just as we (males) look, just as we (humans) are and just as we (humans) do.
So, the problem is that biblical Angelology concludes that, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology” but you merely assert, “angels are…spirit.”
They aren’t spirits prober rather, like us, they are embodied spirits.
Of course, “‘sons of God’ could be a reference to human men” just as it could be a reference to non-humans such as in Job 38:7.
“massive jump…TO MATING with human women” which is the issue of, “why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?” about which you reply, “an angel can have the complete make-up of humanity: cells, blood, liquids, skin, etc.”-though I would go further since it’s not, “can have” but ontologically do have.
As for, “what prevents angels from continuing this practice?” well, 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.
As for, “what then, does this speak of God and His armies of angels' involvement from protecting humans from evil angelic oppression?” I will answer that after you answer: what then, does this speak of God and His armies of angels' involvement from protecting humans from evil Cherubic oppression since the fallen Cherub deceived Eve?
Or, what then, does this speak of God and His armies of angels' involvement from protecting humans from their own styled oppression since the first two humans sinned?
Now since, we have, “Such a small mention in the bible” we must handle the little we’re told carefully, systematize it, and not ignore it based on man-made traditions which contradict it.
I don't understand if Polygamy was the problem why did God allow it after the flood (Abraham, Jacob and King David)? Shouldn't God have addressed to Noah in his covenant that polygamy is outlawed?
I have one objection raised at this as I don't know Hebrew and cannot talk about all the grammatical arguments.
My objection concerns 2 Peter and the use of Tartarus and that this does not mean Peter endorses all of Greek mythology. Yeah, sure, I understand that he of course doesn't endorse all of Greek mythology, but neither does Gospel writers when they uses Hades to speak of the afterlife. Neither does the Greek speaking Jews who use Hades when speaking about Sheol.
Peter obviously used Tartarus because that would be familiar to his audience and rather than explain the same thing he used the word associated with the same place.
And what Dr. Heiser is saying is not that we should believe that the Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels because 1 Enoch says they are, but that 1 Enoch clarifies what the Jews believed concerning the Nephilim. To them, it would be obvious that the Nephilim were giant off springs of fallen angels because of the context they lived in. What Dr. Heiser is saying is that this context is made clear to us first when we read 1 Enoch because 1 Enoch goes into greater detail while Genesis didn't feel that need since everyone at the time would get it.
Fantastic video my friend. God bless you
"Destroys my arguments without even trying" 🤣🤣
Wow! The nature of the exchanges on this page is distinctive!
This is well thought out and has shaken my belief system. Which is a good thing.
To be honest I agree with you 100% due to your through analysis of the text instead of relying others opinions blindly
Heisers theory to me makes sense, the Old Testament was in written Greek, then it underwent a translation to Latin and then we get the Catholic English and KJV
It being in Greek first is notable to me because of Greek Mythology
How did a demigod such as Hercules come about?
He came about in a similar way that Nephilim came about according to Heisers theory
Please reply 😊
My Pastor said whoever the Nephilim are they weren't on the Ark 😂
The Bible mentions Orion three times, naming it "Kesil" (כסיל ,brute, strong):
Job 9:9 ("He is the maker of
the Bear and Orion")
Job 38:31 ("Can you loosen Orion`s belt?")
Amos 5:8 ("He who made the
Pleiades and Orion").
In ancient Aram, the constellation was known as Nephila, Orion's descendants
were known as Nephilim.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📜 *The passage in Genesis 6 about the sons of God and daughters of men has sparked various interpretations.*
01:52 📚 *The three main interpretations are: descendants of Seth marrying Cain's line, earthly kings practicing polygamy, and divine angelic beings producing Nephilim.*
03:29 🤔 *The majority view suggests the sons of God were angelic beings who mated with humans, leading to the Nephilim. However, the speaker challenges this view.*
05:57 🧐 *The immediate context of Genesis 6, focusing on human sins, challenges the divine interpretation. The sons of God are likened to men in their desires and actions.*
08:42 📖 *The term "Nephilim" is argued to refer to a group that existed before the sons of God's transgression, possibly not directly descended from them. The context suggests they were humans, not quasi-divine beings.*
09:20 📏 *Despite the debate over the Nephilim, the text directly defines them as "mighty men of old," emphasizing their human nature, not divine.*
11:36 🌐 *The context within Genesis, especially the theme of human devolution into pride, violence, and polygamy, aligns better with a narrative of polygamous rulers rather than divine beings.*
14:11 🌊 *The flood narrative in Genesis 6 is seen as a response to the fallen state of humanity, particularly the polygamous actions of rulers, aligning with the ongoing theme in Genesis.*
16:30 🔄 *The sequence of events in Genesis parallels the fall of the family in Genesis 4, with polygamous actions leading to strife and conflict,supporting the argument that Genesis 6 addresses the fall of civilization.*
17:50 🌍 *Similarities with Genesis 9-12 further reinforce the interpretation that Genesis 6 focuses on the fall of human kingship into pride and polygamy, rather than divine beings.*
20:03 ❌ *Arguments for the divine interpretation are criticized for relying on the shifting context from other parts of Scripture, emphasizing the importance of the immediate context in Genesis 6.*
21:01 📖 *Arguments drawing parallels to the phrase "son of God" in other passages are challenged, emphasizing that words can change meaning between authors, and the context of Genesis 6 implies human kings.*
22:37 📏 *Attempts to connect Nephilim with giants in Numbers 13 are critiqued, pointing out potential exaggeration and the unreliability of the spies' report.*
26:12 📜 *Deuteronomy's recollection of Canaanite peoples suggests Nephilim in Numbers 13 is figurative, a scare tactic with no confirmation by Joshua and Caleb.*
27:31 📖 *Variant spelling of Nephilim in Numbers 13 implies wordplay, indicating an attempt to instill a double meaning for scare tactics.*
28:00 🏛️ *Influence from Greek and Babylonian thought might have shaped later works like Enoch, but Genesis 6 itself lacks evidence of explicit giants or quasi-divine beings.*
30:28 🤔 *Likely influence from Greek and Babylonian thought as Jews looked back into their scriptures to find parallels, leading to later works interpreting Nephilim as semi-divine Giants.*
31:37 📚 *Jude's reference to Enoch and Testament of Moses is likely for theological points, not historical claims, akin to Jesus using fictional stories (parables) for theological teaching.*
33:41 🌐 *References to Tartarus in 2nd Peter don't imply acceptance of Greek mythology; both Peter and Jude may use Enoch for theological illustration, not historical accuracy.*
34:25 📖 *Context from later passages should not overturn the direct context around Genesis 6, which strongly suggests a completely human story.*
35:08 🌍 *The broader theme in Genesis is the seed of the serpent growing, pointing to the need for a true son of God to mediate between God and humanity, distinct from fallen rulers.*
This was awesome! I have often taken the position the Genesis creation account desexualizes creation when compared to other ANE creation cosmology /mythology. Which made the Gen 6 "Earth Girls Are Easy" interpretation difficult and so out of place. I didn't see the polygamy point, but i knew these were "Only humans!" (The Matrix ref). Gotta go research some of your references that were unfamiliar to me. Thanks Brother!
nephilim are gods
I love how there is no background music on this video - much easier to hear and concentrate on the content :)
I hear a soft background music
I wish that I would have found your channel years ago. I have been struggling with the false dichotomy between being religious and being in a “relationship” with God. Equivocating “religious “ people with “legalistic” people. I would love an analysis of James .
I've followed your video since you started with Genesis 1. I was really looking forward to your covering of Genesis 6.
Many authors, like the likes of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, seek very hard to portray Giants in Genesis 6. Many Christians authors seek that same name sake too.
Thank you for your explanation. It helps my study on ancient Hebrew language easier as it now makes sense. Many do not get the word Elohim (אלוהים) and made presumption it refers to God's name, which it does not. I fact, it is not even a singular God AND not necessarily referring to the God of Israel.
I’m wondering, I think I’d go with hybrid view
Supernatural and humans because angels still needed vessels to have intercourse
So Ángels possessed humans and still gave birth to “supernatural” beings
All this still purports to decline in humanity and civilization
I believe a variation of the first explanation that avoids the “sons of Seth” pitfalls. The term “sons of God” was not tied to a particular family but to a condition of heart. These were godly men, regardless of who their patriarch was. The “daughters of man” were human women in general (and as such, there is no change in meaning of “man” between verses 1 and 2). The godly men chose wives regardless of whether the women were godly or not, leading many godly men to be married to ungodly women. Regardless of express prohibition or lack there of, these mixed faith marriages would eventually lead to the corruption of nearly all mankind, leaving Noah and his family as the only godly people left on earth.
See the bad part about this video is I'm old enough to be your father son. So hearing a child try to explain things to me when I have double a lifetime is rather hard to do.
Lol I understand where you coming from😂 but we all must remember ( In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people; your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.) That being said I’m on your side 💯I don’t agree with this video what so ever lol In my opinion he kept contradicting himself and was looking for loopholes.
I’ve enjoyed this series a lot so far but I think Heiser’s argument if far better. Feels like you’re jumping through hoops to make the text say something it’s not.
Heiser’s argument also fits better with the entirety of the OT including passages like Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 4 and 32.
If this is the case there is no explanation for why Giants existed and where they came from and why God saw fit to exterminate a race of humans that are simply larger.
Angelic Beings concept is the right one i guess which explains all the Greek, Nordic, Roman, Hindu mythologies
You make sense,why would man be punished for the sins of divine beings.
Man was already forewarned and given instructions by God way in advance.
Well done. The points you have stated, make the most sense.
Great video! Making me rethink what I thought about Genesis 6.
My thought is Jude and Peter’s commentary still holds weight. Did they think those events actually happened? Or were they using it as “figurative” language, as you mentioned. That’s probably the key in this debate.
At least we can all agree the seth/Cain view is probably not true.
Theres a problem for me here.
God wiped man out for "polygamy" but when all the patriarchs do the same thing, He doesnt speak against it by any of his prophets? In fact one of his prophets told David he was blesssed by God with the wives of Saul.
That just doesnt make any sense.
The only things Ive seen regarding the having multiple women is that you are not to cast away any woman whose virginity you take. It would seem to me that God would rather a man have 11 wives than 1 wife and 10 others who he is just... using for sex.
Excellent presentation!
I think the word giant is being exaggerated, humans on average are only 5'8. Imagine seeing a Shaq ONeil that would be a giant.
What about the "sons of God" in the book of Job?
How do you explain demon/disembodied spirits and all of the elongated skulls and other giant human bones findings with this view?
I’m with Dr Heiser on this one
Great video. I think your view has more merit than I did prior to watching the video. My objections would be:
1. As you mention, the Babylonian/Sumerian story does indeed have divine beings known as the Apkallu who the gods sent from "out of the sea". These demi-gods mate with human women and have offspring. To me, that parallel is too strong to ignore. You mention there are no parallels to the Atrahasis epic, but the Epic of Gilgamesh has it.
2. I don't see anywhere in the OT that suggests the biblical writers thought there was anything wrong with polygamy so it seems out of place that this "sin" isn't really viewed as a sin anywhere else.
Hey, I know I'm late to the party, but one thing that I was hoping would be in the video would be a justification of why certain individuals said to be "giants" in the Old Testament were also consistently said to have had six fingers on each hand? Is there an alternative justification for that? Thanks!
How about the topic about Hagar and Ishamel? What might have happened to them and their connection to this generation
I really like your take / opinion / view / theory on genesis.6 Great video. Thx for your work / effort on this.
The nephilim are prevalent in Genesis, when the Israelites took Canaan, when David fought Goliath, and during the end times.
Taken in its immediate context, as you suggested, seeing it as the only extant verse, I don't think 6:3 sounds like a punishment at all. Just stating facts; a mortal body can't contain divine power forever.
Idk man, this literally sounds like something my YEC pastor would say. Mr.heisers view (the divine council view) is still the correct view IMO.
gud bie that seems like a poisoning the well fallacy
InspiringPhilosophy the well is already poisoned no need for me to poison more lol. but I love your other videos though especially the ones on evolution and process structuralism.
Disagree with you! Angelic Beings with earthly women is the Truth! SAD You Take Your position!
That online hills dale ad is so annoying it says why is the serpents punishment to walk on its belly if that’s what it already does. NO they had legs ugh.
See here ua-cam.com/video/72T2bW8bkfA/v-deo.html
Jude 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.
And also in Daniel chapter 3 many people think that it was an pre incarnate Jesus in the furnace with shadrak, meshach, abenago but the scriptures in context show differently.
25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the[e] Son of God.”
Nebuchadnezzar Praises God
26 Then Nebuchadnezzar went near the [f]mouth of the burning fiery furnace and spoke, saying, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here.” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego came from the midst of the fire. 27 And the satraps, administrators, governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together, and they saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power; the hair of their head was not singed nor were their garments affected, and the smell of fire was not on them.
28 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel[g] and delivered His servants who trusted in Him, and they have frustrated the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they should not serve nor worship any god except their own God! 29 Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation, or language which speaks anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made an ash heap; because there is no other God who can deliver like this.”
The faithful need to proceed with caution when watching this channel. God's word doesn't distort. Some passages are historically taken out of context, but if it says there were giants, then there were. I can't dare to imagine God saying "yeah the seas didn't really part they just crossed a stream, oh and, Goliath? he was actually the height of Gwendoline Christie from Game of thrones haha"
You cannot do a proper review of the Neplilim without the Book of Enoch since the OT writers refer to it.
Khazar, also known as Khazaric or Khazaris, was a Turkic dialect group spoken by the Khazars, a group of semi-nomadic Turkic peoples originating from Central Asia. There are few written records of the language and its features and characteristics are unknown. Remember, the devil was called the "ape of God." Note: The ape was revered in China as well. In South China and Tibet families proudly trace their ancestry back to simian forefathers who abducted women and had children by them.
I thought everyone knew that the Nephilem were Cro Magnum men
Daniel Snyder, u are a cro magnum
perpetual eye, unless you are 100% sub Saharan African and Southern Eurasian, you of cro magnon descant.
I looked up Genesis 6 and Job 1:6/Job 38:7 in the Greek Septuagint and the words for “sons of God” are different in Genesis and in Job. In Genesis the “sons of God” in Greek is: οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ And in English in the Septuagint it says, “sons of God” in the verse. In job the Greek words used are: ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ And in English in the Septuagint it says,” angels of God” in the verse. Does anyone know why the Greek words are different in each book and why the English version says two different things? I personally don’t think Genesis 6 is referring to angels but I’m just trying to figure this out.
Heiser makes a more convining case using other contextual writings.
A well argued video, but as much as I enjoy your work this view crumbles once the context of the mesopotamian view of the apkallu sages is considered. Gotta go with Heiser on this one.
This interpretation makes sense. I like it very much.
Cant say I agree with this pastor arnold Murray and chuck missler breakdown the angelic element perfectly with scriptural backing
What about the little detail in the bible that giants had 6 fingers and native American say the same thing? In fact when you show your hand out as a greeting and say "how" that's where that comes from
There used to be only the sethite explanation or the Fallen Angel Theory but I think this one is the best based on the scripture.
Luke says the Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. That is pretty simple.
The problem here is that the much older cuneiform story of creation from which Genesis is lifted from explicitly describes the Nephilim the sons of ‘those who from Heaven came to Earth.’
I've heard that Michael Heiser is not even a Christian so I wonder if that means he is without the Holy Spirit and therefore without understanding of what is being said here. Preferring mythology to scripture?
It's truly sad to see Christians "normalizing" a collection of books that report impossible and divine truths to fit into a scientific narrative. The Bible is filled with supernatural things, so applying human logic and doing all this mental gymnastics just to not be called illogical is just a waste of time. You can explain away anything by continuously digging and hoping to make the text fit into your world view, but the fact of the matter is that supernatural things are just that, supernatural. So explaining God's divine miracles by saying that they are explainable just cheapens the text. Christians will never be logical and win anyone over by logic. It takes faith. For every text you explain away by applying human logic you will only take away from what God intends us to know... which is that He does the impossible. You can't explain away Jesus' divine birth, Him walking on water or turning water into wine, Him raising Lazarus from death, or His resurrection. Which is beyond me why you would spend so much time explaining away Genesis 6, when it is easily seen that the text speaks of something out of the ordinary and not polygamy. If God flooded the earth because of polygamy, then as Atheist say, He is tyrannical and evil. He isn't. God is good and flooded the earth because of this nonredeemable abomination created from this unholy union of Fallen Angels and women who were not only corrupting humanity, but also destroying God's creation. If you're worried about looking stupid for believing that, fear not, we are already looking stupid by believing a man rose from death and saved all humanity by doing so. God intended it that way... He uses the simple things to confound the wise. It is written.
I always felt like that passage was missing material.
I've tried to tell many people that God intended for marriage to be between 1 man & 1 woman... Anything else is sinful and God won't bless a mess... Polygamy can lead to generational curses...
And as for arrogance, God despises a haughty look... He uplifts the humble & abases the proud...
Thanks for your video...
How do you explain archeological findings of skeletons of giants who were over 9 feet long?
There weren’t any they were all debunked as either hoaxes or misidentified bones of mammoths or mastodons
Sons of God in the Bible never have referred to men but have referred to angels like in Job.
So not only are you denying Angels sinning against nature in Genesis, but to solidify a weak argument you go and attack ALL giants in the Bible? Wut? I'm sorry, you've made excellent superior videos on theology and the defense of Christianity, but I think you're losing your edge. This video and the one about Micheal being Jesus as well.
Hello once again. I really hope you you give me a quick reply. because I honestly think you have a misunderstanding of the verse. And I think you might be giving the wrong message. I’m not here to stomp on you or anything, I really enjoyed your videos. But I really have a problem with this one.
First I don’t see how the parallel with gen 3/6 means they’re not angels.?
You said text should not be trumped by other passages. But said Sons of God mean angelic being, & in every other passage, and even in the New Testament. When it says sons of God it’s always talking about angels. So if you change it to Kings like you did. Then passages will trump with each other.
You also combine text for no reason which I think it’s done incorrectly, and it doesn’t work or make sense. Like when said the offsprings of the s.o.g, where the nephilim? By combining text for no reason. It makes more sense that they were called also nephilims?
I want to say that if I’m wrong I have no problem, but I’m starting to think you’re giving the wrong messages in your videos.
So I think the text talks about angels and not Kings. And this is why....
V1- men multiply.
V2 - angels get with the daughters.
V3 - God reduces life to 120yrs.
!!!Now in verse 4 it explains that nephilims were already here!!! AND then it says WHEN the S.O.G Bare children to them (daughters), they ALSO became mighty men(offsprings)
So in Verse 4 after it explains nephilim were already here. But then it says “WHEN THE S.O.G CAME TO THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN”... And when did they come to the daughters of men-> back to verse 2 .....
V2- “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of all which they chose”.
I truly believe it’s talking about Angels!!! I don’t see how Bible itself talks about nephilim as Kings or the off springs as Kings. But rather a group of people called the nephilim, And the S.O.G offsprings It also leans more for angels.?
And also the offsprings could be called men. Because they come from a Women. Which is a man because that’s her kind? She from the mankind.
Tell me what you think.
Thanks. (:
So if Genesis 6 doesn't involve giants, where did they come from?
My gosh, man, haven’t you read Unseen Realm? I’m in Dr. Michael Heiser’s camp. He is an amazing scholar who I think has this subject totally cornered.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved-see 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’”
if polygamy is the driving force behind the deluge in gen 6 then why doesn’t god himself specifically make that part of his covenant with Noah in genesis 9, god only references murder, but also throughout genesis god does not punish men for being polygamist such as Jacob, for he not only married two wives but created envy amongst those wives by bearing children with both wives. If god was such against polygamy then I would think that he would have a problem with Jacob, son of Isaac having a polygamist family
so where'd the giants come from?
In Semitic speaking cultures, women are often used as metaphors for other things like deities and worship, so polygamous men may imply they were worshipping many gods which the authors are condemning
As for Jude and his story of Mosses body fight between Michael and Satan, it is accepted as oral tradition in the Coptic Orthodox Church. The story happened and was communicated orally till it was written down in the book of Enoch. Yes it's not a holy book; but the story itself is recorded there.
I am sure there are many historical events were recorded in these non canonical books, still most traditional christians do not believe in them
Because they are pesudo texts and heretical... see the council of Nicaea...
I wreckon Og was just a pimp with the ladies and what we interpret as the length of his bed was actually the width. And it's width was actually where he lay head to foot.
The "Enoch" Jude quoted might not be the same as the Enoch we have today. While parts of it were contained in the dead sea scrolls, that doesn't mean it wasn't corrupted with alterations and spurious additions since to what we have today.
Remember 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
If God inspired Jude and Peter to quote part of those works, then what they quoted must have been correct at least in the portion they quoted from (if not in whole at that time before being corrupted), in the same way the book of Jashar is quoted in Joshua and 2 Samuel. While not an inspired text, that too contained something noteworthy enough that God inspired the Bible writers to quote it into the inspired word.
There were no Human Kings before the flood. The violence is a result of an Anarchistic society (much like Israel was In the time of the Judges when they failed to consult God, see Deuteronomy 12:8, Judges 17:6, 21:25, Proverbs 12:15). The first human King mentioned is Nimrod after the flood.
Other nations had legends of good benevolent gods coming to earth establishing order with these mighty famous demi god offspring. The Bible is the only one of the narratives that flips it on its head. These "Gods" weren't powerful benevolent beings that fixed anything but rather, made things worse. Their offspring multiplied the violence
The Nephillim (or literally Fellers) come from the legends of Demi Gods, your Perseus, your Hercules. Except they're the bad guys in this narrative. Not swash buckling heroes on a quest for the Gods. Ignore the rubbish that the Nephillim were "Giants" though, the original language and contexts don't support it. Even Goliaths height is the shorter 6ft 9 one matching the Septuagint In the dead sea scrolls.
I commend you for taking on a difficult topic.
Near the end though I feel you fell into very bad argumentation.
Referring to Jude and Peter.
You begin with your presumption and then dismiss the text based on your bias.
You say there is no mention of it in scripture.
And then read two Scriptures, Jude and Peter, mentioning it.
You also make a red haring out of the Word Tartarus.
Just because the writer uses a modern Word to describe a Biblical truth does not there fore mean it must be metaphorical.
I.E. all the references to Hades in scripture.
"If" Angels were locked in prison for punishment.
Using a word Tartarus to convey an understanding does not mean the understanding is false.
It seemed to me you are trying to embellish or are trying to hard to make your case with things that don't support it.
Though I feel you did make a good case prior to this point.
For me, the argument against angels being the “ sons of God” has been that angels would have considered themselves far superior beings. As repulsive it would be for a man to mate with animals, surely it would have been more so with angels.
I think the comment in Jude may be referring to the history where Korra Nathan and abihuh sinned against Moses and the earth opened and swallowed them up to hell. I.e. the earth opened.
It's interesting to think if the text is referring to the 10 ft mankind
What are horites? Who lives in caves? Why are horites only mentioned with rephaim (meaning tall or giant) and edom (eliphaz mated with timna horite and gave birth to amalak who gave birth to amalakites that made Israel look like grasshoppers? .......why are descendants of horite also in judahs genealogy? Why, in genealogy of shelah, are the records ancient (records of reknown?) And his genealogy ends there? Who is Koz (cozmos?) And anubis?
Gotta disagree. I went in with an open mind, but this approach fails to account for several problems.
1. Flood the world, destroying all flesh, is an overreaction to a supposed sin that King David, a man after God's own heart, the progenitor of the line leading directly to Jesus the Christ, practiced. David had more than one wife.
2. God gives the reason for choosing Noah in that he was righteous but also pure in his generations. Generations here seems to be more about genetics. He came from Seth, therefore his human origin generations can be accounted for.
3. Gibborim = giants, Giants were a problem that David had to deal with in Goliath and his brothers, so denying the existence of giants before the flood is kind of unnecessary when they are so prevalent in Moses' and King David's times, too (the verse - and also after that?). As for calling 6 foot tall people giants, don't forget Saul was head and shoulders taller than everyone else which is why people wanted him to be king, so he was likely well over six feet - was he called a giant? Look at ALL of scripture before denying what people in the bible said as their experiences.
3.5 There's a lot of mention of on the front end of not using other parts of scripture to interpret Genesis 6, but then most of the later refutation of the angelic sons of God theory uses other sources to refute the context, and there's a lot of "More than likely" statements in the narration than there are hard facts.
4. Consider the modern problem of alien abduction stories that include impregnating the abductees. Even our government finally admitted this as a reality, though they did so after this video was made. If "aliens" are reproducing hybrid human aliens, why deny they couldn't have done the same back then?
5. God's spirit doesn't strive with man in the bible because a) man was complicit in this hybridization sin and b) it doesn't mention the fallen angels punishment [here] because the bible is about and for and to us humans, not the angels. He deals with them separately.
All this said, much respect to you and your research. I LOVE your tower of Babel video. I'm following your channel a lot more closely now. Thanks for your research and time.
Actually, Gibborim = might/mighty.
As for "giants":
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
The preponderance of the earliest data is that Goliath was a just shy of 7 ft.
Also, he was a Repha: which is the only thing that the word "giant" in your English Bible is telling you about him.
But since you seem to be referring to subjectively unusual height--which is not the English Bible's usage--then it's correct to be, "denying the existence of giants before the flood" since, in that case, we're dealing with Nephilim and we've no reliable physical description of them.
You seem to say that Nephilim were, "prevalent in Moses' and King David's times" but that's not the case at all.
Ironically, I'm 6 foot tall and have been called a giant many, many times.
But then again, you're misusing that word. For example, when you say, "was he called a giant?" just what Hebrew word would he have been called as per your usage?
@@KenAmmi-Shalom ah, having fun with circular logic
@@truemediatv Why did you go insta-full-blown worldly and merely reply with an assertion?