Talk:Nephilim

Talk:Nephilim
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bible (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject
Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the
coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would
like to participate, please visit the project page,
where you can join the discussion and see a list
of open tasks.
C
This article has been rated as C-Class on the
project's quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the
project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ancient
Near East
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Ancient Near East, a
collaborative effort to improve the coverage
of Ancient Near East related articles on
Wikipedia. If you would like to participate,
please visit the project page, where you can
join the discussion and see a list of open
tasks.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on
the project's quality scale.
???
the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class)
Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the
coverage of Judaism-related articles on
Wikipedia. If you would like to participate,
please visit the project page, where you can
join the discussion and see a list of open
tasks.
Talk:Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nephilim
1 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
Archives
Nov. 2004 Aug. 2007 1.
C
This article has been rated as C-Class on the
???
the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity
Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve
the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you
would like to participate, please visit the project
page, where you can join the discussion and
see a list of open tasks.
???
???
project's importance scale.
This is not a forum for general discussion
about uncited theories on the possible
origins of the Nephilim. Any such comments
may be removed or refactored. Please limit
discussion to improvement of this article. You
may wish to ask factual questions about uncited
theories on the possible origins of the Nephilim
at the Reference desk, discuss relevant
Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for
help at the Help desk.
Contents
1 Nephilim Descended from Elohim
2 Singular
3 Popular culture section
4 Recent edits linking Nephilim to
UFO phenomena
5 Has anyone else ever noticed this?
6 Nephilims in Sumerian creation
myth
6.1 Why I keep removing the
2 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
'Nephilims in Sumerian creation
myth' section
6.2 Why I have putting back the
'Nephilims in Sumerian creation
myth' section
7 I'm more confused now than ever
8 Unsourced comments about the
Ethiopian Church
9 Hebrew text of Ezekiel 32:27
10 Source for "ambiguity"? that
nephilim can apply to sons of God
11 Eliyahu ben David
12 References to Sethites in Eth.
canonical Bible
13 There must be a better font
14 Albanian language claim
15 Despite Evolution
16 Niheim Tag Request
17 Sources of Scriptural Quotation
18 More video games/comics blah
blah
19 Time to seriously consider
mentioning neanderthals
20 Thanks for improving the lead
21 Sirens = Mothers of Nephilim
22 Fossils of Giants
22.1 aggeloi
23 Offspring of Seth.
24 POV Intro
25 Mention crazy theories?
Nephilim Descended from Elohim
This is not an advertisement from a psychic tarot card reading snake oil
vendor, this is an Elohim head sitting on the moon, taken from an Apollo
17 mission video. In the public domain. And that is relevant to the
discussion as the Nephilim were descended from the Elohim. Deleting
the data will not make it go away. I am sorry you do not like the data, but
that won't make it go away either. And as science must contend with the
data, you do not serve science by deleting the data from Wikipedia. You
merely serve to make Wikipedia irrelevant, when hundreds of thousands
3 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
of people see this image in places like youtube, and from the Apollo 17
website. Also the other related data which I posted, was not speculation
either but actual scientic data. Censoring scientic data is not part of the
Wikipedia mindset. I will not bother to repost it, but people may view it in
the history if they so wish.Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick
S33555 (talk contribs)
It's just a rock on the moon. And please sign your posts with four
tildes (~~~~). --Ghostexorcist 10:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Signed as requested Rick S33555 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And as far as your opinion goes as for it being just a rock, well thats your
opinion and I will ght for you to have your opinion, and I will ght for
others to have theirs as well. Censoring the data is not the same as
voicing your opinion and NASA is as credible a source as you can get.
And there is more data, which you have censored, such as the image of
the Anunaki, (see history) and if that is just a natural rock formation, then
so is Mount Rushmore. Further and pursuant to all that, show me the
tablets.
Rick S33555 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's just a picture of a rock on the moon from a screenshot of a clip
from youtube, which is a blacklisted site on wikipedia because it
regularly breaks copyright laws. It is not a WP:Reliable Source. Yes,
Mount Rushmore is a natural rock formation, the faces carved into it
are not. Show you the tablets? --Ghostexorcist 10:32, 10 October
2007 (UTC)
Well I personally do not own a satellite, and so as such, cannot show you
a satellite image from space, but I can show you coordinates, so that you
can go and use google earth, and see this for yourself. 15,10,21,56 S
and 75,14,32,12 W at an eye elevation of 14 miles.
That is an Anunnaki, and part of the same discussion, which includes the
origin of the Nephilim.
I posted an image, from an Apollo 17 video, I did not post a link to
youtube. The image is in the public domain as all NASA footage is in the
public domain. Granted, the video did appear there on youtube where I
4 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
obtained it and fair use dictates I show the source, but the footage is
NASA footage.
And my reference to show me the tablets is a common expression
because the belief in the 10 commandments is well known, but they do
not physically exist. No hard data only hearsay evidence. So it is unfair,
to censor actual physical evidence when much of the subject matter in
this topic is hearsay evidence. It seems to me that you are taking a
biased opinion based on preconceived notions and not allowing others to
make up their own minds what the data means. The head there on the
moon is a giant head, and as such is one of a few examples of giant
heads that may be shown here. So I submit that you should really allow
the facts to speak for themselves and not allow your personal opinions to
interfere with the honest pursuit of the facts.
As for no published data on this subject you can read Zechariah Sitchin
and countless other well documented texts by PhD's in many scientic
elds of endeavor. Rick S33555 11:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I say again, it's a screenshot from youtube. It's not reliable. How can
anyone read about the "published data" if you don't offer citations?
--Ghostexorcist 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for being difcult, but I nd it very annoying when the scientic
facts are treated with such disrespect. People went to the moon and they
brought back evidence such as this and for you to dismiss it as nonsense
ies in the face of their heroic effort in mankind's pursuit of the truth.
Here is the screen capture taken just now from one of the videos which
depicts the head. http://s2.supload.com
/free/VideoandlocationofElohimHead-10-10-2007.jpg/view/ Here is a link
to the video. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1652245.rm Here is
the page the video is on so you can do your own further research of you
wish... I will even narrow it down for you to geology station 6.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/video17.html#station6
And as far as references to texts are you suggesting that Zecharia
Sitchin is not a scholar?
"Zecharia Sitchin was born in Russia and raised in Palestine, where he
acquired a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other
5 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and
archeology of the Near East. He is one of the few scholars who is able to
read and understand Sumerian. Sitchin attended and graduated from the
University of London, majoring in economic history. A leading journalist
and editor in Israel for many years, he now lives and writes in New
York.""
And are you suggesting also that Von Daniken is a crackpot? Why?
Because he dares to mention relics that he nds on his journeys around
the world, having researched in the eld, rst hand for over 30 years.
Spoken to countless people in locales and studied their traditional
legends and mythology. He has done more eld work that any Harvard
archaeologist. Just because his opinions do not match yours is no reason
to vilify him or his work.
Do you have some explanation for that 4 mile long rock art sculpture of
an Anunnaki at those coordinates in google earth I gave you or for the
Elohim head found by Apollo 17? So why then do you revile these men
who _do have an explanation? I will tell you why, because you are afraid
of that which confronts you and so you wish to minimize it by relegating it
to the fringe and offering guilt by association to somehow discredit the
ideas of men who spent their entire professional careers studying these
subjects. Read em and weep. The locations are there I have provided
them at the NASA website and you have censored data and have shown
yourself to be not a fair judge in this matter. Unqualied to delete my
posts.
Yes, I do have an explanation for the 4 mile long rock art sculpture:
It's a rock. You still have not provided correct citations to support
your claims. --Ghostexorcist 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I have shown you an Elohim head on the moon. From Apollo 17
footage, and you might ask then well where is his birth certicate and of
course I cannot provide that and you could then say well where is his
passport? And I could not provide that either. If you ask for his citizenship
from some alien planet I am afraid that he is without his wallet, so then
what sort of citation could I provide that would satisfy you? Although
Zecharia Sitchin and numerous other people have written extensively on
6 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
their translations of the Sumerian texts and Biblical texts, no citation says
expect to nd an Elohim head on the moon. Although there are plenty of
references to the moon and even in Indian mythology with the
Ramayana, where a battle is fought on the moon. So then you dismiss
the rock art of the Anunnaki. And you say it is a rock. Yes, a rock with a
clear depiction of a person, who with his right hand is holding up two
ngers and with his left hand has his index nger as a missile. And so
then to explain that all to you, so that you can see how that ts in with
other archaeology would take some time if you are a nay sayer, as nay
sayers just deny the evidence. So extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary evidence and these two things I have already shown you
are quite extraordinary. Above and beyond extraordinary. And so then
giving you more coordinates in google earth to yet more Anunnaki I can
do. Here beside that one, is the smoking gun. (You have no idea what
you are dealing with here) And keep in mind, you are almost asking for
proof of God here. So don't say to me, that that is just too incredible.
14,58,55,43 S and 75,22,14,43 W eye elevation of 11.47 miles and rotate
clockwise 10 degrees to the east for proper orientation.
And so then I can show you how these water bringer Gods, the
Anunnaki, who red the missiles, tie in with the Elohim, where one
impacted, and where one is still sitting on the moon, which did not
detonate, and how this all ts into their battle with the Elohim, and how as
has been claimed by many, that there was a ood of sorts which resulted
in the demise of the Nephilim their creation. But if you delete everything,
including references to where that other missile is, and the relics which
depict this story in Egyptian archaeology and Sumerian studies, well then
how can I show the information so that people will be able to understand
the connections between the Elohim, the Anunnaki, and the Nephilim?
"Well I have shown you an Elohim head on the moon. From Apollo
17 footage..." You have shown me a rock on the moon from a
screenshot from a blacklisted website.
"Although there are plenty of references to the moon and even in
Indian mythology with the Ramayana, where a battle is fought on the
moon." I am well aware of the events of the Ramayana because I
have initiated several Hindu-mythology related articles.
7 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
You still have not provided credible proof for your claims. I think the
overall problem I have with your "original research" is your claim
about gods ring missiles at one another. I have to request you stop
posting here like wikipedia is a forum. If you want to make valuable
edits to the main article with veriable sources, please feel free to
do so at any time. --Ghostexorcist 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This NASA website is not a blacklisted website. Here is a link to the
video. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1652245.rm Here is a
screenshot. http://s2.supload.com/free/VideoandlocationofElohimHead-
10-10-2007.jpg/view/
You are not being reasonable. I am just trying to show you evidence of
the Nephilim, which I'll admit, some believe are mythical creatures, who
were created by God, and so you ask for evidence that God did it, from a
what a scientic journal? Well the good lord works in mysterious ways
and he has made some rock art for you that tells the story and that is his
citation. Here is another one, fair use policy I won't make you look up the
coordinates, it is there by Nazca as well. http://s2.supload.com
/free/NazcaHead-9-5-2007.jpg/view/
So hear me out. Two missiles were red at the moon because the Elohim
were mining into the moon, and were destroying the gene pool with
genetic engineering (Biblical reference Genesis Elohim and the
daughters of men etc) one went off and created Aitken Basin and
punctured the moon causing water to outgass from the moon and it fell
on the earth in vast quantities. The Nephilim which were on the earth,
were forced to the equator where competition for food made them extinct
along with the megafauna. If you examine these artifacts, the Narmer
Palette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NarmerPalette_ROM-
gamma.jpg) and the Victory Stele at Naram-Sin (http://www.historians.org
/Tl/LessonPlans/nc/Kinard/naramsin.htm) you will see depictions of those
two missiles. The Water Bringer God symbolism is in many relics from
the Middle East and Peru such as the (http://upload.wikimedia.org
/wikipedia/commons/1/12/La_Venta_Stele_19.jpg)dead link] La Venta
Stele etc.
I'll admit that I am not expert on Wikipedia style and that is why when I
did post to the page I just forwarded the information here for discussion
on how to present this data. So here is a link to the water bringer Gods
8 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
as well, and if someone can piece this information together in Wikipedia
fashion, then that would be nice because it is relevant data. And also,
Zecharia Sitchin and Von Daniken should not be merely placed in the
popular culture heading but rather in a separate heading The
Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. I have seen this site used in Wikipedia but I
post it here simply because I can't provide every reference for Zecharia
Sitchins work etc. Perhaps someone else can. http://www.crystalinks.com
/godswaterbuckets.html
Basically, you have demonstrated to me that you have no textual
citations to support your original research. You can show me all of
the moon rock formation photos and stelae you want, but it still
doesn't help your case. --Ghostexorcist 14:55, 10 October 2007
(UTC)
To an extent, whether the rock is what it is claimed to be or not
is irrelevant. What matters is whether there are reliable sources
which specically argue that it is, and whether inclusion of that
information on this page would raise concerns about the idea
receiving undue weight. So far as I have seen, there has yet to
be presented any evidence that any reliable source has made
the claim regarding the rock that you make, or any of the other
claims you put forward as well. On that basis, the content
cannot be responsibly added to wikipedia. If and when a reliable
source does make such a contention, then there would be no
objection to including the information somewhere in wikipedia,
maybe here, maybe elsewhere. However, until and unless a
reliable source, as dened by the WP:RS page makes that
contention, and provided the content does not place undue
relative weight on the theory as per WP:Undue weight, we
cannot by policy include such content in any article. John Carter
15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I just can't even imagine a source that could make that claim besides me
the pope and God, and so I guess I will bow to your wishes unless you
might somehow suggest what a reliable source might look like on the
earth that could identify that as an Elohim? You and I both know the
journal Nature is not going to publish any article of that nature and also I
cannot even post image snapshots from google earth, so I guess at the
end of the day Wikipedia is not exible enough to deal with the real world
and the facts as they present themselves. Thanks for your time. Rick
9 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
S33555 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:Reliable source answers your question. --Ghostexorcist 19:59,
10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well this is the only reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Image:William_Blake_006.jpg) I have for you. But of course it
doesn't say what it is, and so it requires a great deal of understanding to
know what it is. Thats Hecate, thats the underworld and thats an Elohim
head with bat wings to signify Catholicism. And I can pass that
information on, but its not satisfactory for Wikipedia's guidelines
regarding reference to that specic head in question and as such, I am
sure you understand that I would be unable to prove that it is, and so
once again I have to just leave it to others to write scholarly texts and
then perhaps it can be used. Rick S33555 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is some kind of trolling, sci, role-playing, whatever other kind of
spam[1] (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.astro/2007-10
/msg00171.html). Just auto-revert it. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:37, 16
December 2008 (UTC)
"I got a rock." -- Charles Brown, It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown
(1966) Mr JM 02:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Please God, may I never sit next to this man on a ten-hour
ight!PiCo (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Singular
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 ction). Could
someone provide the Latin (i.e. regular), Greek and, ideally, Hebrew
script versions?
Thank you
David Latapie (! | @) www (http://blog.empyree.org/en) 18:19, 12 October
2007 (UTC)
Depending on which etymology your using either !"# or $!" . !"# is averb
10 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
though. Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk contribs)
19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The transliteration of the above Hebrew (!"#) is N-F-L, so using the
niqqud from %& ' ( !( ")* (N-F-L'M. "Nephilim") it would be rendered
"Nephil." Latin (Jerome's translation) is gigantes meaning "giant."
Greek (Septuagint) is the same, just the Greek version (!"!#$%&',
"gigantes"). 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Can Nephilim (the plural form) be used as a singular? The article says 3.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary denes the word simply as "Giant." Thus, any
especially tall, powerful, large, or mighty man would be described in
ancient times as Nephilim. Nephilim may simply mean "giant," champion,
or strong man. 4. The term might not refer to any specic race or group
of people but is a label similar to "hero," a legendary gure, or "great
man." Is that (plural form to mean one individual) just an instance of
barbarism, or does the Bible use it in singular like
Elohim?--87.162.33.234 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Popular culture section
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
signicant'. WP:POPCULTURE says "should contain veriable facts of
genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some
information can be veried from primary sources, this does not
demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in
independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely
signicant it will be easy to nd a secondary reliable source to attribute
that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance
of a subject as a cultural inuence is encouraged." So, that still needs to
be done for what's left. --Doug Weller (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
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 nal
article would be only a quarter the length of this. PiCo (talk) 07:47,
10 November 2008 (UTC)
11 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
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)
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)
I am irritated beyond belief that you've removed the Pop Culture section!
Regardless if YOU think it's trivial, it is not your right to censor what
others have put out here as potential references to this topic in pop
culture! I nd it irritating, egotistical and ridiculous that you took it upon
yourself to decided which references were worthy or posting and which
were not. It is actually IMPORTANT to me and my project to know that
there are comic books, books, tv shows and movies being made on the
topic and for you to have just decided that they were self promoting and
therefore not worthy is (something for the reader to decide based on their
reason for looking it up!) nuts. Seriously, get a grip and PLEASE return
the info to the page (you can put your comments on the "worthiness" on
each reference if you want, but to delete it all is not your perrogative.).
Some of us out here are actually researching stuff beyond the facts as
YOU know them and would prefer the article to be overly inclusive rather
than exclusive. Do you have any idea how much time doing research you
have created for me??? UURRGGHHHH!!!!!! Preceding unsigned
comment added by 173.89.6.4 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
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
veriable 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)
Recent edits linking Nephilim to UFO
phenomena
12 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
I've reverted this. The bit about 'growing number' had no source. Superior
Books and Xlibris are self-publishing houses [2]
(http://www.greententacles.com/articles/1/13) as is Anomalos [3]
(http://www.anomalospublishing.com) and ThinkAgain just seems to be
the creation of the authors. dougweller (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008
(UTC)
Has anyone else ever noticed this?
If you look at the way the text is written, it basically just says "the sons of
god did it with the daughters of man, and the nephilim were on the earth
in those days" technically there's no causative relationship between
those two. It might even just be saying "back in the time of heroes, the
sons of god got it on with the daughters of man" . are there any, like,
sources from biblical scholars regarding this? Not that it would solve
anything, it'd actually raise even more questions if they were unrelated...
Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:57, 4 November
2009 (UTC)
Nephilims in Sumerian creation myth
This should only be in the article if it can be based on reliable, academic
sources. I was about to revert it myself, and have removed it from
another [[Watcher {Angel}]]. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009
(UTC)
The IP editor that added them recently said they were from
Sumerian translations, but none of the sites he provided gave those
translations. If he can provide those translations that actually say
what he's claiming, I'll shut up. As it is, he has provided thee
websites as references in the article, all three use Zecharia Sitchin
as acceptable sources (two mention him by name). A fourth source
that he provided in an edit summary, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/, is a
legit site, but he does not bring up the text that he is refering to, and
it is his responsibility to show us the text that supports his claims.
Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Why I keep removing the 'Nephilims in Sumerian creation
myth' section
13 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
The three sites given as sources, http://theanunaki.blogspot.com/2009/04
/anunnaki-and-creation-of-mankind.html, http://www.crystalinks.com
/sumergods.html, http://www.livingwithsoul.com/god-myth.htm all use
ideas ultimately derived from Zecharia Sitchin. They do not actually
present the translated Sumerian texts that would support their claims.
The rst site is on blogspot, which is not an acceptable source for
wikipedia because anyone can start a blogspot page with anything on
there (and it is not under any sort of review like wikipedia is). The second
page is concerned with conspiracy theories about the 2012 armageddon,
reptilians, and other fantasies. The third page cited is an advertisement,
which is unacceptable. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ is a legitimate site, but
the actual texts to support the claims I keep removing are never
presented. It is not my job to look for the evidence of those claims, it is
the job of the person making the claim to show his evidence. SO far, he
has only been showing other websites that he agrees with that do not
show their evidence either. If I said that novel Moby Dick has the
character Darth Vader in it, it would be my job to show where in Moby
Dick that Darth Vader is mentioned, and simply linking to other sites that
say "Darth Vader is in Moby Dick" or "George Lucas was inuenced by
Hermann Melville" would not work because they are not actually showing
where Darth Vader is in Moby Dick. If this happened, it would only be
sane to assume that Darth Vader is NOT mentioned in Moby Dick.
I have to agree with you Ian. I was in the process of reverting the
page, but you beat me to it. The edit summary I left was thus: "The
point is that this is Wikipedia and everything needs a source.
Personal knowledge of the pervaliance of various gods in
Summerian texts is not the same as a scholarly source attesting to
that fact."
Those sources do sound very unreliable. --Ghostexorcist (talk)
15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not the Annunaki or the Enuma Elish I have a
problem with, its that they actually are not being brought up in
their original form but in fantasy websites. If an example of the
word Nephalim being used in Sumerian texts was found, or
even a common intermarraiges of humans and supernatural
beings leading to a ood could be found in the actual
translations of the texts (instead of websites claiming to have
read them), I would be ne with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15,
14 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
20 November 2009 (UTC)
agree and would have reverted. Unfortunately Ian is now
over 3RR (I can understand why but it creates a problem),
and I've taken this to ANI [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard
/Incidents#Need_some_help_at_Nephilim) where hopefully
someone will do something. If I wasn't involved I would
have protected the page. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 20
November 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. I expect the
IP to enter into dialogue here over the insertion of the
section. For that reason I have not blocked the IP yet.
Should no discussion take place, or the editing
continues after the block expires, then a block will be
enacted on the IP. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 20 November
2009 (UTC)
Why I have putting back the 'Nephilims in Sumerian
creation myth' section
It's me, the "unsourced-one"..:) Guys I appreciate your efforts to keep
Wikipedia clean and trustworthy, I also think it is very important. But
looking at the tons of articles on Wiki, that have even less sources,
claiming wilder things that we can imagine, I begin to wonder...If I didn't
know that, this article is a part of "WikiProject Judaism", what is "a
collaborative effort to "improve" the coverage of Judaism-related articles
on Wikipedia", and I didn't know that hebrews dont really like to
remember the origins of their "own" stories, I'd be also much more
understanding and helpful with sources and in everything you want from
me. Since I'm just as much the same editor of Wiki as You are, personal
opinions doesn't really matter, there's not any "leading-opinion" in a topic
which nowone knows about wheter it is about a real thing or the whiole
thing is just a fairy tale. In connection with an article like that, asking me
to "prove" anything, and "show sources" about, I think is a little harsh
from you. We don't have too many sources about it. We have the Bible,
which tells us they are called Nephilims and they "had sex" with woman.
Based on this, who on Earth can tell about any other source that, it is "not
based on facts". Anyway, the story in the Bible is based on facts? Can
you prove it? No, you cannot. It is just an idea about them, if they even
existed. What you're doing with the immediate delete of my addition,
15 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
saying that is "not proven" I think a little ridiculous. I know this Sitchin guy
wrote two hundred books about Niburu and other things (I dont really
believe in), but the FACTS he built his work on are FACTS. Of course he
coloured them, made them ready to be sold for the brainless, but the
Anuna gods, Enki, Enlil, the story of creation by them is existed and can
easily be found in ANY sumerian source. Ian deleted my posts and
proving that he thinks ALL the words came from me are Sitchin's, and
deleted without thinking through, what parts of it is exactly wrong or
misinterpreted, and what parts are 100% facts. If Ian liked this article and
wanted to know the truth, he should be happy about getting a clue, where
to search more. But he didn't do, he just deleted the whole thing, which
SEEM to smell like Sitchin. To clear things up: Actually, very hard to nd
a text which DOESNT mention Anuna gods. Creation in the sumerian
myths is something that anyone can read who has eyes, in many
sources. If Ian would be a fair editor, even if he thought that all my words
came from Sitchin, he could have deleted my insertions, adding a short
sentence at the bottom of the page, that: "There are sumerian texts that
are not just 2 vague sentences that we've been talking about here for
pages, that - according some ezoteric/crazy/etc. guys - can explain the
whole overcomlicated thing here.", or sg like that, not so ironic...:) But he
just simply deleted my article, saying that he is not the actor of the article,
but an editor of Wiki, he wont search for any clues, he just deletes what
is wrong. But if he never searches, it is not easy to say what is wrong I
think. Editors dont have just 2 options, "leave it or delete". An editor has
the responsibility of correcting, what is wrong, and leaving what is right. I
dont think my additions didnt contain ANY right, but Ian' s deletion of the
whole thing tell everybody its wrong completely, which I didnt liked ,and
put my article back as many times as he deleted it in his blind anger. im
not a "pirate" on Wikipedia, I just would like everybody to know about an
other possibility, that might explain some thing. Zoltan_Bereczki (talk)
16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Show us where in any Sumerian texts there is anything resembling
the stories of the Nephilim. You have yet to show us anything. You
have shown that you do know where to look for translations of
Sumerian texts, so you have access to those texts, but you still do
not show evidence for your statements. This is not about whether or
not the Bible is "true." The issue is did the Sumerians have similar
legends, which you keep saying but have not been able to show.
Even if you realize that Sitchin is an unreliable source, the sources
16 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
you provided use him as a source, which makes them unreliable.
This isn't about if there texts that mention the Annunaki, we all know
that there the issue is whether or not there are legends about the
Annunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchers and the
Nephalim. You have not shown any legends about them that are,
you hve only shown sites that do not show any such legends either.
It is not my job to search for clues for your claims, that is your job.
You made the claims and provided unreliable sources for those
claims, it is your job to look for reliable sources.
Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dick
article to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the book Moby
Dick? Would it be responsible for me to do so using websites that
used material rejected by scholars, especially a personal website
and a site advertising a book? Would it be responsible for me to tell
others to go look in Moby Dick for Darth Vader instead of giving them
the citation myself? No, none of those things would be responsible.
"...we all know that there the issue is whether or not there are legends
about the Annunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchers
and the Nephalim..."
That's exactly why I didnt like the way you've been handling my addition.
You clearly state that you do know that Anunnaki legends are similar to
the Nephilim story. I cannot understand you, when you've been working
(=deleting) on this article for a while, but you still don't think its worth
writing at least a single sentence about this? What is your point with this
article? What is the point of all the article on Wiki? As an editor of Wiki,
isn't it a part of your job to let Wiki readers get a full picture? A single
sentence is not too much to write, if you have been always aware of that,
there is a slight possibility that Anunnaki and Nephilim might be the
same. That's what I dont like and feel a little arrogant that you delete
something or not, but you never correct nothing? You were able to check
my refs, in the same time you could also correct it, or write that single
sentence, that would note the possibility of what we are talking about. But
you just deleted the whole new content. If all the editors do like this, of
course, a lot of unreliable information get blocked, but how many
interesting, fresh, less dull (I mean, not copy-pasted from any
encyclopedia) contain lost forever? Just because the author is not able to
17 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
interpret it in the correct form, or an author uses one single unreliable
refs, but on the other hand many new ideas - maybe very substantial -
would be thrown out the window? Thats what I dont like the method you
follow during editing. If you dont feel responsible for this, I think you are
not the perfect one to be an editor here or anywhere. Anybody could
delete things that not in the correct format without thinking it through, but
that's far from the maximum, you could give. Just a few can feel Wiki
their own, and only the ones who spare no effort, can making Wiki
contains more colorful.
"...Show us where in any Sumerian texts there is anything resembling the
stories of the Nephilim...Would it be responsible for me to put something
in the Moby Dick article to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the
book Moby Dick?"
What exactly you want me to show you? It is like you asked me to show,
if "God" is mentioned in the Bible, or not. You can search anywhere, it is
anywhere in the texts. Anunna gods are just like this, the are everywhere
in sumerian texts, you dont have to search for them. Just the ones
cannot see them without eyes. the resemblance I think is relative to the
point of view, but in the case of Anunnaki and Nephilims it is more than
obvious. Just like the Nagas in the Thai, Sri lankan, or Indian Nagas in
Ramayana. I dont think I am the one who is aware of the resemblance of
these to the Nephilims, but I cannott see any notes in connection with
them. But you are all happy with the article the way it is now, because "It
is not my job to search for clues for your claims". This sounds
disappointingly snobbish and arrogant, from a scientic point of view,
from one of the editors of Wiki, after writing "we all know that there the
issue is whether or not there are legends about the Annunaki that are
similar to the legends about the Watchers and the Nephalim". I hope your
point of view will change with time and your job can be really fruitful, and
will expand from "deleting only" into "eternal and relentless searching and
publishing for the any possible truth".
"Would it be responsible for me to do so using websites that used
material rejected by scholars, especially a personal website and a site
advertising a book?
In your opinion rejected by scholars means what? Wich shcolars and
18 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
why? Galilei wasn't "rejected" by scholars? Who decided that? Are you
self-condent and infromed about that enough, to decide what is the real
thing behind rejection? And You can decide it, but me, I cannot? Can
Wikipedia readers decide, what you think? The principle that you follow
during editing is like that, in my interpretation: I decide for all the Wiki
readers, what is ok and what is not. What I dont nd ok, I dont let
through, so it doesnt exist for them.
I think even the wildest ideas should be let through, but signalling that the
possibility of being true is slight, if I think so.
One can never think, what the future brings, how science turn
upside-down from one day to an other, and who will seem the silly one in
hundred years, just like the way now we think of the ones who put Galilei
aside and made him "rejected by scholars" of his time...To list all
possibilities, even if some of them are just wild ideas, I dont think would
mislead anybody, if we afx that : "according our present knowledge it
cannot be proven".
"Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dick article
to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the book Moby Dick?"
Your example with the Moby Dick is not really covers our case I think.
The example is better, if you say: I make an addition to the article about
Herman Melville, about that he wrote a book about Moby Dick, and Darth
Vader is a character in it. Your reaction to my addition is similar to the
one's who would delete the whole addition about the book Moby Dick,
because the author mentioned Darth Veder in connection with it. Wiki just
wouldn't tell anything about Moby Dick, because of that error, and
because you are lazy to write an other, correct article, without the ref
about Dart Vader. Thats the case if you are aware of the fact the addition
has a "core of truth" in it, but is wrong with some details. Is this good for
Wiki readers? Don't you think, the existence of the Moby Dick is
important enough to be published even if the source is not 100% sure?
But in the end, you are right with that, we need one or two actual
sentence which I promise I'll look for, and insert as soon as I nd in the
text. But anyone could do it, if he saw a short sentence referring to the
19 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
"sumerian connection", and could expand it from that core information.
But you deny to give that clue for a possoble future research. If you dont
want to do it, at least let others do.
What makes it difcult, I dont really know, what to prove. If I nd
sentences about the Anunnaki, whats next? We get to know that they are
like this and like that, but we dont know nothing about Nephilims, how on
Earth we could characteristics of Anunnaki compared to the big nothing
about Nephilims?
Thats why I think, Anunnaki should be the base of the whole Nephilim
article, sumerian sources are much older and give much more
information about Anunnaki, what they did, why they did, what was their
personalities like. I think I could cite arond 10.000 sencences about their
activities, but how we'll see any similarity to something that only contains
2 sentences (the version in the Bible)?
But I will look for some sentences, because you told me, and maybe I will
be forced to correct my statements, and i will mea culpa than...But hard
to think that apparently I'am the one who cares about the resemlances,
others who know the same are silent. I thought Wiki is something that is
developed together, putting matching pieces of knowledge together in a
global cooperation, not commanding others, what and how to do...
Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have just done a JSTOR search on Nephilim and Anunnaki (and
Anunaki just in case), and nothing at all showed up. And without
anything there, I don't see it very likely you are going to nd any
reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
In the ref I gave, either search for 'Anuna' / Anuna gods or use this direct
link to search results...http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin
/etcsl.cgi?simplesearchword=anuna&simplesearch=translation&
searchword=&charenc=gcirc&lists=Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 15:44, 21
November 2009 (UTC)
But a JSTOR search on 'Anuna' and Nephilim also turns up nothing.
Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
They should update soon than. :) Maybe a stupid question, but why do
you think it should be in JSTOR? Zoltan_Bereczki (talk) 16:09, 21
20 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
November 2009 (UTC)
JSTOR is a database of various scholarly journals, including journals
about Jewish and Middle East studies, Anthropology, Religion,
Archeology, and so on. If a scholar has written about the Nephilim
being derived from the Annunaki, it would be there. As for the link
you provided, the issue is not whether or not the Sumerians
worshipped the Anuna gods/Annunaki (that is accepted), the issue is
whether or not the stories about the Anuna are the basis for the story
about the Nephilim in Genesis (which the link does not show). The
ood story in Genesis is certainly derived from a Sumerian source
through Babylon, but the intent is different: in the Sumerian stories
the gods are tired of the noise made by the overpopulation, while in
the Nephilim narrative the evil of the Nephilim causes the ood. I
have found this essay (http://rshendel.googlepages.com
/HendelDemigods.pdf), which points out that the story of evil
half-human giants appears to be an isolate in West Semitic cultures,
which means that they likely didn't get it from Sumeria through
Babylon (or else it would have been found among the Canaanites as
well). Sitchin did make up a lot of crap, and the connection between
the Annunaki and the Nephilim appears to be one more thing he
made up. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This entire thread is making me have horrible ashbacks of this
previous discussion. Many claims are made, but are never
supported with reliable material. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:33, 21
November 2009 (UTC)
Zoltan, I've removed your recent edit. Please read WP:OR
-- Wikipedia is not a place for original research - this applies
to both articles and talk pages. The bottom line is without
reliable sources [WP:RS]] which in this case would be
academic sources this has no place on Wikipedia.
Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to conrm my arguments, how should I do this than? All that
you can read before my post, are opinions as well. I stated nowhere the
last sentences are facts. The bottom line of my comment was my
opinion, which I don't think is forbidden to express on a talk page, if it is, I
cannot see the reason. I'm new to Wikipedia, could you help me out, I
inserted the source, is it ok like this? I can insert other sources if you
want. (But anyway I still cannot see, why a talk page - which is for
discussing what can be a part of the article, right? - can only contain
21 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
posts with references and sources? One cannot have "his own brain" to
perform original thoughts without sorces, seeing connection between
things, without reading it somewhere anywere before?). Zoltan_Bereczki
(talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I read the Wiki rules, and now I feel much more informed! :) Our
argument is about wether all these divine "species" the same or not. I
was told to reedit my comment here, because it contained my opinion.
Ok, I got that, opinions cannot be expressed on Wiki. But isn't that also a
way of expressing an opinion, if we actually don't mention the other
possibilities, suggesting that, there doesn't even exist any? Wouldn't they
deserve the less a link in the Related topics?
I just read Wiki, and now I got to know that Book of Enoch is the rst and
perfect example under the article pseudepigraph...and it has a
highlighted place in this article as a reliable source. Zoltan_Bereczki
The Nephilim article, following scholarly consensus, assumes the
Nephilim were mythical beings and not historical ones. Genesis 6 is
the rst mention of them, and the Book of Enoch is the major
development of the mythology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 27
November 2009 (UTC)
You're saying, if there is a "scholarly consensus" in a eld of science, it is
valid ethernally? Poor Giordano Bruno was told the same, before being
sent to the stake, by your intellectual ancestors. "Sorry Giordano,
scholarly consensus says the heliocentric view is nothing else than a
crazy idea...It should burn together with you! Step ahead!" You say,
Nephilims "were" mythical beings and not historical. Ah, thats where our
little argument is heading for... If something "'was", it cannot be mythical I
think. But I start to see your point. You think mythology is something that
for the kids and crazy dreamers, we've better not to take it serious?
Nephilims should stay at their own place, in the myths? Thats why you try
to keep this article the way you like it? If we are arguing about that, I just
would like to know... We all know that, science has just begun to explore
the Middle-Eastern and Asian sources in the last fty years. Sumerian
sources were impossible to translate until the recent past. According to
biblical sources only, I would agree with you. But after reading the
apparently same story about them, I just begin to think, Thats exactly
22 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
why I wanted everyone to be able to do so. When we were schoolboys,
we were taught that all the cultural roots of European culture are actually
European, Greek or Roman. How about this now? It has changed a lot,
but not because of the ones like you. If everyone would be like you, we
couldnt even start a re, without the approval of a "scolarly consensus".
There might have been a scholar consensus, but times change, new
facts appear, assumptions change. Seemengly, one thing doesn't
change, your opinion, which you think is established by the "scolars",
who think Book of Enoch an established source (of mythology). I can
accept that, if you want to be blindfolded, and want to think myth is a
myth, you are free to do so. You can think I'm just a crazy guy who spoils
your day with his fantasies. But I'm not still here because of that. I'm here
because I know stories about nephilims, other ones about Nagas, and
about Anunnaki. If I read the same story in three culture's myths so far
from eachother, do i really need sholarly consensus to say, tha "might be"
(not are, I never stated that) the same. I wish you would be able to
understand this, and you wouldn't think that, you know the right thing
about all this, in the right and unquestionable way. Because the problem
with this point of view is, it doesn't let even a clue for new ideas and
(established) theories. How should science and "scolarly consensus"
develop with time, if everything is carved in stone in Wiki? It will become
a nice collection of dusty ideas, which are based on hundred years old
"consensus", would that make you happy the way like that? If I put two
apples side by side, do we need a scholarly consensus to determine
them both as apples, or we can use our eyes to determine that? What I
asked, and wanted to put into the article, was not that, these apples ARE
the same, but just putting them side by side in this article, and everyone
can decide - if he wants - whether they are the same or not. Try to
answer to this, in your own human voice please, I haven't really liked to
talk to this dry and lexical Ian "robot" thompson, I would like a human
being to talk with, thanks. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 12:54, 27 November
2009 (UTC)
I urge the above editor to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY and
ensure that his future comments adhere to it. And the only one I see
doing any "arguing" is the IP editor. Wikipedia is not a compendium
of information, but rather an encyclopedia. As such, it is nlike all
encyclopedias intended to reect the current opinion of the scholarly
community. The fact that you have drawn a conclusion that the
stories are similar is not sufcient for the article to be changed to
23 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
reect your own opinion, however well founded you may think it. If it
were, then virtually edvery article dealing with JFK or anyone else
closely associated with any fringe theories wouild be awash in
speculation about aliens, conspiracy theories, and lord knows what
all else. If you can nd an academic journal or other source as per
WP:RS which makes the association explicitly and provides its
reasons, ne, that is admissable. By the same token, if it is an idea
which no respectable scholar has yet put forward, then there is a
very real question as to why not. This is the reason we have a
specic guideline dealing with material which has not received
scholarly consensus, WP:FRINGE, which I suggest you read. But, at
this point, that guideline doesn't really apply, because you have yet
to point toward any reliable source as per WP:RS which says what
you say. I would therefore also suggest you read WP:NOT and
WP:OR. We do not pubnlish original research, which, by your
statement, is what your own individual conclusion regarding the
relationship of these subjects is. This is not saying I am completely
unsympathetic with you. If you look at Talk:Atlantis, you will see a
statement from me regarding what I think is the likely origin of that
myth. You will also note however that I tacitly acknowledge that for
that idea to be put in the article it would need reliable sources. For all
I know, there may be some very good reasons why the scholarly
community has not made that association. So far as I can tell, the
same can be said about your conclusion. Because we don't want to
be found to put forward conclusions which are not reliable or
credited by any of the recognized experts or authorities in any eld,
we demand reliable sourcing, and, sadly, neither you nor I are
reliable sources.
If you can nd sourcing, which is what we want for anything added to
any article, good, that is what we want. If you can't, then there is a
real reasonable question why no one has published such a
conclusion. There are other sites which do permit additions based on
personal conclusions of editors. This is not however such a site.
John Carter (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm more confused now than ever
I've read what Wikipedia has for the denition for Nephilim. However,
after reading this material I'm more confused now than ever. I'm an avid
reader of the bible daily needing some clarity on this race of people. I've
concluded that this race of people or group was as Adam (tall) but world
renowned now that gives me just pause here. Was Noah and the people
24 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
of that day what short, non-warriors or what? The Nephilims are
mentioned after the ood so what gives and where did they originate? I
may have to wait until I'm face to face with the Son of God, Jesus to
know. Too many ifs in this content. therecabites@yahoo.com````
Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.97.18 (talk) 15:27, 26 January
2010 (UTC)
Unsourced comments about the Ethiopian
Church
Is there an Ethiopian Orthodox version of 1 Enoch completely different
from the 1 Enoch known as "Ethiopic Enoch"? Because if not, we need
some sourced evidence to show that the Ethiopian Church takes a
non-canonical (in Ethiopia) 5th Century pseudepigraphon
Conict_of_Adam_and_Eve_with_Satan over 2 "canonical" (in Ethiopia)
books. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
btw -- The Ethiopian Orthodox Church article cites a website (of
said church) which conrms that the church believes the
canonical (for them) Enoch, which makes the statements in the
article very unlikely In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
In ictu, The ofcial Ethiopian Orthodox canonical Enoch is
similar to the Greek, but a crucial difference is that it (like
Jubilees) describes the Nephilim as hybrid descendants of
Cainites and Sethites, not "Angels". I've seen you on the
Amharic wikipedia (where I edit as User:Codex Sinaiticus) so I
will link the ofcial Orthodox Amharic text here (http://good-
amharic-books.com/onebook.php?bookID=83) for you to read
(Henok at end of Section 3). Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk)
12:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Til, thanks. But I should admit that my command of Amharic
is so far below-basic that would take me all day to decipher
that. So can I understand you to be saying that e.g. Knibb's
1978 translation here is incorrect:
10 Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to
approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery,
incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. 11 And the women
conceiving brought forth giants, (This is leaving aside Knibb's footnote(7)
re The Greek texts) Which means (from memory) that the translation in
25 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
OTP1 is also incorrect? Though it's been a long time since I read it, and
probably wouldn't have noticed a footnote to that effect. If Knibb and OTP
are wrong then disappointing that there is no source in English for a fairly
widely believed error. (not that most errors aren't widely believed) In ictu
oculi (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche -- In the 1882 Malan, Book of
Adam and Eve - Page vi he notes a "Said Ibn Batrik or Eutychus,
physician, and also Melkite Patriarch, who lived in the ninth century ;
when he wrote his Nazam al-jatvahir, or "String of Gems" as he called his
"Annals of the World," from the creation to his own time." who based his
work on Conict... But that's Melkite, is there a reference source to show
that the Ethiopian Church does not accept the teaching of one of its
canonical books? I cannot nd anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 5 July
2010 (UTC)
I do not follow what you are talking about. The canonical Oriental
Orthodox text as I have linked is the ofcial Bible, and the Book of
Enoch (Henok) as well as Jubilees (Kufale) there states
unequivocally that the Nephilim are hybrid descendants of Sethites
and Cainites. This is what the O.O. Church says too, so there is no
disagreement with the canon there. The disagreement seems to
come from the Greek version, which calls them "Angels". Til
Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Til, forgive me if I'm being dense, these are my
questions:
1 in Knibb 6:8 (http://exodus2006.com/3rebels.htm)] the Ethiopic text
is the same as the Greek in saying "Angels", or has this htm been
adulterated and that is not what Knibb says? If this htm has edited
Knibb what does Knibb say in 6:8? Or is Knibb wrong??
2 Where is there a source by the Ethiopian Church which says that
the Gen 6 "sons of god" were sons of Seth?
3 Where is there a source that says that the Ethiopian Church gives
any credence to the 5thC "Conict of A w S"?
I'm asking this not because I don't want what you're saying
to be true, I'd love it to be, but where are the refs so they
can go into the article? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 6
July 2010 (UTC)
1) That website purports to be a translation of the
"Ethiopic" Enoch, but to all appearances, it is
26 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
word-for-word identical with the 1908 Charles
translation, which was mostly based on the Greek and
Syriac versions. It categorically is NOT a translation of
the canonical Ethiopic Orthodox version!
2) The canonical Orthodox Books of Henok (Mets'hafe
Henok) and Jubilees (Mets'hafe Kufale) are the primary
canonical sources stating the doctrine that the "sons of
god" were "sons of Seth". I'll have to look around for a
secondary source, but no doubt one can be found
stating that the Ethiopian Church teaches this.
3) The "Conict of Adam and Eve" isn't on any list of
books withj ofcial canonical status, but the literature is
certainly known to the Church as literature (presumably
as any other in the category of Ge'ez literature). Til
I found a secondary source for question #2 -- here
is an ofcial EOTC webpage that specically
addresses the question of why the offspring of
Seth from Enoch are called "sons of god" in
Genesis, and whether they are really "Angels" as
certain other churches teach (note it concludes
that the idea these "watchers" were "Angels" and
not humans from Seth, is anther false teaching
unsupported by Scripture)
http://www.mahiberekidusan.org
/Default.aspx?tabid=98&ctl=Details&mid=371&
ItemID=75 Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:57, 6 July
2010 (UTC)
Til, many thanks. I'm interested.
1. is there an English translation of the canonical version?
2. is there an English version available as a ref?
3. Who is the main EO writer who has used "Conict.."?
In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
1,2 I don't know of any standard English translation of the
canonical Amharic text of Henok.
3 - You may be asking me to delve into OR, and I'm limited to
what I can say. The reason is that the EOTC has never even
published the entirety of its "broad canon" in any language, but
it is said to include several books attributed to St. Clement. You
can read a translation of the Arabic Kitab al Magall
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aa/aa2.htm), a book attributed
27 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
to Clement that includes very similar language to Conict with
regard to the identity of the Watchers being Sethites and not
really "angels". The interesting thing about the Ktab al Magall, is
that it purports to be the teachings of St. Peter to St. Clement; in
the book, St. Peter says he got part of it directly from Jesus, but
most of it he says he got from a genealogical scroll that had
been allegedly given Jesus as an infant by one of the Magi, and
preserved by the early church. It's highly likely that something
similar is in the "broad canon" EOTC writings of Clement, but
nothing has been published. Sufce it for our article to say that
the current Church denitely takes the same view of the "Angels
mating with humans" thing being a western superstition, as the
Amharic link I gave yesterday indicates. Til Eulenspiegel (talk)
13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
1,2 - Okay. Perhaps I rst need to understand which is the
canonical one among mss A-Q Book_of_Enoch#Ethiopic? Re.
OR, there is a way round the OR, issue; if the key verse of the
canonical text of 1 Enoch is directly copied into a footnote, and
the Ethiopian printer/date noted, then that cannot be OR; and if
an English translation of that line goes into the main text that's
completely legitimate, that's not OR, just a translation. People
do that with German and Latin all the time, as long as the
original German or Latin is in the ref footnote.
3, - Okay, forget about the article, just for my own interest can
you name the EO bishop who cites from "Conict" against the
angels mating with humans view.
Btw - Thanks - this is interesting In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010
(UTC)
Hebrew text of Ezekiel 32:27
This: " As the text stands "And they shall not lie with the fallen mighty of
the uncircumcised, which are gone down (yaradu + , - ) ./&) to the grave with
their weapons of war:", but this could become the gibborim nepilim of the
uncircumcised.K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der
Horst, "Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible", p.619
(http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&
printsec=frontcover&dq=Dictionary+of+deities&source=bl&
ots=aFszbVpZ1q&sig=BTsr0PxWHwKqtvU25jjSvqWGv3g&hl=en&
ei=3OAvTNHPBYOjcYnS6KMD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Nephilim&f=false)"
28 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
The word uncircumised does not show up in a search of the book, I see
nothing on page 619 either suggesting " this could become the gibborim
nepilim". So why is this sentence in the article? Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 4
July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. This is the state of that paragraph prior to my adding in the
ref that the Massoretic Text requires a change to read in this
manner:
<<<The original connection with fallen-ness seems to be through their
identity as warriors, as in Ezekiel 32:27, where the warrior nations fall
(npl) down into Sheol, the home of the gibborim nepilim, "fallen warriors".
K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst, "Dictionary
of deities and demons in the Bible", p.619 >>> So does DDD p.619
support the comment as it originally was? If not you'll have to ask the
person who wrote the original sentence. As for the word "uncircumcised"
it is in the Hebrew text. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2010
(UTC)
The ref I added: <<W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel vl.2 Translated J. D.
Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983 p168, p176>>>
is actually there in DDD p619 as "Zimmerli (1969)" which
supports the use that the original poster made of it, except for
DDD says "might be preserved" given Zimmerli is discussing a
case made after emendment from nepolim to nephilim. DDD
conclude that whether Zimmerli's alterations to the text are
correct or not that MT nepolim "exploits the etymological
signicance of nephilim".
Also we all need to be careful with handing out "Original Research"
charges, as whoever wrote the original sentence + ref was not doing
"Original Research", but simply misread what DDD is saying about
Zimmerli. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It was I as wrote it. The passage in DDD on which I was basing
my sentence is this:
[]something of the older sense of the term might be preserved in
Ezekiel 32:27, where the warrior nations "fall" (npl) down into
Sheol, but are not privileged to lie with the gibborim nepilim, the
"fallen warriors" ... Certainly npl is a keyword in Ezekiel 32 and
exploits the etymological signicance of Nephilim.
I take this to mean that the use of npl in Ezekiel, where it
29 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
signies a descent into the underworld for the slain warriors,
casts light on the meaning of the same root in the nephilim of
Genesis - they are the "might men of old," now in Sheol, but
living in the mythic past of the author of Genesis. (It is my
understanding that the author of Genesis was writing after
Ezekiel 32, although not long after - probably no more than a
century - but this, I think, is why the DDD speaks of "the older
sense of the term" - Ezekiel is older than Genesis). So you can
use this explanation to decide whether DDD p.619 supports my
edit.
As for In ictu oculi's comment that the MT requires a change to
read nepilim, I believe he's right. The MT at Ezekiel 32 says
nopilim (I think), not nepilim. The DDD doesn't mention this fact,
but it is a fact.
PiCo (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there was an edit conict, I didn't see In ictu oculi's
latest comment. I'm be happy for him to edit the article as
he sees t. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
PiCo :) No problem, as I said I didn't consider it OR, and I didn't
delete the DDD ref because it's still very relevant. You go ahead and
edit.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Sources need to deal with the entire statement being
cited - it should be easy for someone to check the
source and say 'yes, that's what it says'. If we say
'something requires a change', it needs to say that. I
get bothered by statements such as 'I take this to
mean' - isn't that OR? It looks as though DDD is being
interpreted and that's original research. I agree though
that misreading is not OR. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 4
July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Well in this case DDD is only recycling Zimmerli, so I
wouldn't worry too much. There's plenty of totally unsourced material
in this article, without making a meal of a reference that is less than
perfect. btw PiCo whatever the wording in DDD might suggest, I'm
fairly sure Zimmerli isn't arguing that Ezekiel is older than Genesis,
since he'd have to make "Cherub in Eden" etc. prior Genesis too.
Possibly the issue is more related to the St Petersburg Codex being
8thC. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Source for "ambiguity"? that nephilim can
apply to sons of God
30 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
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)
Eliyahu ben David
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)
Go ahead, delete.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
References to Sethites in Eth. canonical
Bible
In octu, here's my best attempt at translating literally the canonical
Amharic text I linked above.
Henok 2:1-3:
After mankind abounded, it became thus: And in that season, handsome
comely children were born to them; and the Offspring of Seth, who were
upon the Holy Mount, saw them and loved them. And they told one
another, "Come,let us choose for us daughters from Qayel's children; let
us bear children for us."
Henok 3:8-10:
"And speak the cleanliness of the Earth, that I shall heal the Earth that
the Offspring of Seth destroyed, that I shall cleanse Earth. All mankind
won't perish by all the secrets of the sins, whereby the Offspring of Seth,
who are diligent for sin, killed, and that they taught to their children. By
Azazel's works and teaching all Earth perished; and write upon him the
sin of all persons,", He told him.
Henok 4:7-8:
"Go and tell both for him who perished with women, and for the Offspring
of Seth, who did as Qayel's children do" they told me. "They married
31 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
themselves wives, and were lost in a great destruction in this world."
Henok 4:23-27
I saw a vision where there was a chastisement, that I might tell and send
upon the Offspring of Seth, who were in a Heavenly rank. And I awoke
and came toward them; and all had been gathered and sat as they wept
covering their faces in `Ubilsya'il, that is between Sinilir and Libanos. And
I spoke before them all the vision that I saw while sleeping. I began to
speak this word, which is a thing of Truth, and that I might teach to the
Offspring of Seth who were upon the Holy Mount, who are diligent for
their sin. This is the book where the reprimand was written to the
Offspring of Seth, diligent for them sin...
Henok 4:29
As the Illustrious Lord has created me also, and given me a reasoning
that I might teach the Offspring of Seth who were on the Holy Mount, I
saw while sleeping the things I speak.
Henok 4:69
"Approach here and hear My Word, and go and tell the Offspring of Seth
who are diligent for sin, Who sent thee to beg for them' He told me.
Henok 4:80-82
And now giant men birthed from the Offspring of Seth, who are their
kindred, shall be called evil children in this world. And their lodging shall
be in this world. As their fathers had been born from the Offspring of Seth
who descended from the Holy Mount, evil children were born from the
Offspring of Seth who are their kindred.
I have only got through chapter 4, and that's all I have time for now, but it
seems there are many more such references to the Offspring of Seth in
Henok and Jubilees, as well as throughout the Books of Meqabyan (and
there is a standard English published translation of Meqabyan) Regards,
Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Til, thanks for that - that is indeed plenty and proves your point. I
hope you can actually use that translation somewhere later.
32 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
That is indeed substantially different from the Ethiopic MSS
used by RH Charles etc.
(RH CHARLES) 7:2 And when the angels, (3) the sons of
heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them,
saying to each other,Come, let us select for ourselves
wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.
(WEBSITE VERSION) 2:1-3 and the Offspring of Seth, who
were upon the Holy Mount, saw them and loved them. And
they told one another, "Come,let us choose for us
daughters from Qayel's children; let us bear children for
us."
So what of A-Q is the Website pdf based on, and does the pdf
display any publication year? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 7 July
2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the "letter classication" of the
Ge'ez text, that the canonical Orthodox Amharic translation
was made from. I do know this is the ofcial EOTC
translation that was rst made during the Haile Selassie
years, when the deuterocanon was rst published
separately; and was later the same text as that included in
the 81 book Bible published by the EOTC later on (I think
that was around 1990 but I'll have to check). Remember
that Charles, Charlesworth, and apparently also Knibb,
stated that they made extensive use of the Syriac and
Greek versions in their translations, thus their texts do not
seem to follow the Ethiopic as much as they do those other
translations, in many places. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:46, 7
July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Til. I think I've worked out what's happened. The pdf
may well be the 1935 Buxton version (see Bible
translations (Amharic)), the one that was printed in
America in 1936, but withdrawn and reissued in 1962.
Of course Charles, Black, E. Isaac (in Charlesworth),
Nickelsburg etc. all use Syriac, Greek, etc. to
supplement the later Ge'ez where possible. But I doubt
they'd even look at Buxton's Amharic edition. The
question is does the 1962 Tewahedo version follow
the 1935 Haile Selassie/Buxton text, or follow the
Ge'ez texts? And what do modern EO commentaries
on Enoch say?In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2010
(UTC)
I think calling it the "Buxton version" or whatever is
33 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
a misnomer because it is the translation from
Ge'ez to Amharic commissioned by Haile Selassie
I in Ethiopia, and not in the US. Reading that link
carefully, suggests it was some different version
that was published in the US. The deuterocanon
including Henok, Kufale and Meqabyan, however,
was rst published separately, I think in the 1950s.
The "81-book Tewahido Bible" that came out a few
years ago includes the same text of the
deuterocanon as published previously. I know I'm
repeating myself, but I don't understand what
further demonstration of the Ethiopic Orthodox
doctrine it would possibly take to convince you that
they don;t subscribe, and won't subscribe, to any
notion of "angels breeding with humans". Til
Yes, I'm sure that the "Buxton version" is a
misnoma, which is why the section Bible
translations (Amharic) reads First Haile Selassie
Bible (1935) not "Buxton version". It's not an issue
of convincing me, I believe you, and if I didn't one
of my former tango partners was EO, I could ask
her. It's an issue for Wikipedia refs of either (a)
nding a publication date to support that the pdf on
the link in Bible translations (Amharic) is the
current Tewahido version (which it probably is)(b)
a ref in any EO publication to use as a ref in
Nephilim.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010
(UTC)
Til, time to nish up, thanks for your many comments. To demonstrate
that what you're saying sounds completely reasonable and supported, I
have made cautious edits to Nephilim, 1 Enoch, Ethiopian Orthodox
Church and Bible translations (Amharic) in line with your translation
above, but with
[citation needed]
and left in the text. I expect some more
regular user of the pages will see those and ll them in. I would urge you
not to waste your translation above on a Talk Page. Cheers.In ictu oculi
(talk) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In ictu, I have a copy of the 81-book Tewahedo Amharic Bible right
here, and I am assuring you that you can have good faith that the
version of the Book of Henok there, is identical to the one on the pdf,
and in fact appears to be a photo off-set of the same pages. Til
34 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
Til, I'll edit as you say! :) + would it be asking too much also to
have Henok 2:2: and the Offspring of Seth, who were upon
the Holy Mount as Amharic script? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 8
July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for edits. I've added your translations in refs, as they will be
lost on the Talk page. Dead Sea scrolls are earliest FWIW. It occurs
to me that those street vendors selling copies to Dillman etc (A-Q)
may have done so because the EO church had thrown them out
exactly because of the sons of God reading. Touches on a major
issue with all 19thC mss acquisitions in Greek too. In ictu oculi (talk)
04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There must be a better font
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)
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)
Albanian language claim
Nephilim has a striking similarity with Albanian language word nellim
which means "in the biggining". Ne = in, llim = 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
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nephilim&
curid=1209056&diff=414677315&oldid=380427776). Also, We don't
35 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
analyze, we just report what reliable sources state. Ian.thomson
(talk) 21:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Despite Evolution
Despite Evolutions rise, and the increase in more and more fossils being
found. I just don't nd 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/ction 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
nal 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 ow
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)
We do not publish original thought, original research, or speculation.
Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Niheim Tag Request
I accidently found Niheim (one of the realms of Nordic tradition)
looking for this page. A tag at the top of the page reading Did you mean
"Niheim"? should not hurt anything.174.25.129.229 (talk) 03:22, 8 June
2011 (UTC)A REDDSON
They're false cognates, and from different mythologies, so... Unless
they used near identical spellings in English, it really doesn't warrent
36 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
a link based on one accident. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011
(UTC)
Sources of Scriptural Quotation
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)
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)
More video games/comics blah blah
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)
Time to seriously consider mentioning
neanderthals
The rst generation of hybrids that populated the planet had neanderthal
fathers and sapiens mothers (sons of God, daughters of man). We know
this because we recently sequenced the neanderthal genome and found
admixture signatures in human nuclear DNA but not human
mitochondrial DNA (which is exclusively matrilineal). In light of this new
evidence, fossil hybrids that were previously considered controversial are
now, in retrospect, rather obvious examples of admixed ancestors with
less bias towards sapiens genes. There is limited evidence that more
evenly hybridized populations may have persisted until very, very
recently in certain parts of the world. I realize you probably aren't going to
edit the main page just yet, but you should consider this a warning that at
least a few theories long ago dismissed as crackpot are about to be
dusted off and reassessed (see: Stan_Gooch#Hybrid-origin_theory).
37 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
00099a99000 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything at that link mentioning the article topic, Nephilim.
If there is something somewhere else, we would have to avoid any
Original synthesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011
(UTC)
A quick glance on Google books shows some stuff, but it's all
kinda minor primary sources on the belief that neanderthals and
nephilim are connected in some way. I'd wait until there's a
secondary source describing that type of eisegesis, because if
we describe a one guy's view, proponents of other views will edit
war about their differing views; and if we go with a few different
views we'll either violate WP:SYNTH (if we condense things the
right amount) or WP:UNDUE (if we don't condense). A
secondary source could easily be written (though I'm not nding
any), as there is some diversity in the views: ancient astronaut,
neopagan, new age, fundamentalist Christian, anti-Christian,
anti-Semite, white supremacist, black supremacist...
Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to link this page to the Neanderthal/Cro-magnon man
hypothesis -- wikipedia's own article dates Neanderthals as co-existing
with Cro Mangnons. I'd be interested to hear and discussions here on the
talk page, I am reading about this connection at the momemnt and
interested to hear from anyone else who has studied it. Charleswfox
(talk) 09:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
(sorry I got my notes in a twist the rst try, 35000-10000 would be the
dates of Cro-Magnon, not the dates of its overlap with Neanderthals,
which would be only at the start of that period. So thats a long time for an
oral tradition to persist before writing down in 3000BC. But no less
probable than the alternative explanations I think!) Preceding unsigned
comment added by 143.167.9.250 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I have studied this connection, but we are very limited in what can be
said here, by our Original research policy. Basically, it means we
can't make any new point that an externally published source hasn't
already made in relation to the article topic, Nephilim. Til
Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Til here. We really can only include material in this,
the main article on a topic, if that material is in accord with not
38 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
only WP:OR, but also any number of other policies and
guidelines, including WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and others. It might
certainly be possible to include such information in an article
more directly focused on that particularly topic, such as, for
instance, a book which clearly meets our notability
requirements, or a separate article if it has been referred to by
multiple sources in a way which does not violate WP:SYNTH
and other policies and guidelines, but it would almost certainly
be best to rst create such a separate article, and then discuss
adding relevant material to this article. John Carter (talk) 18:46,
3 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I found a recent 2012 academic source that mentions
the connection and have added it (HUMAN UNIQUENESS,
THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND ANTHROPOCENTRISM
OF THE GAPS IN THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE
DIALOGUE, Joshua M. Moritz,2012, DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01240.x). That's in a proper 40
year old jounral, impact factor 0.36, with professors from
Harvard and Yale on its board. I hope this is useful and
interesting to readers. (And thanks for pushing me to
search properly for this.) Charleswfox (talk) 09:27, 4 May
2012 (UTC)
If you've got something like that mentioning the article
subject, it would be great to add its take on it, but we
can't expand that too much with a discussion of
neanderthals citing sources about neanderthals, unless
the same point has been made by a source referencing
Nephilim. Discussion of neanderthals using
neanderthal sources would belong on the neanderthals
article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what this article is, (HUMAN
UNIQUENESS, THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND
ANTHROPOCENTRISM OF THE GAPS IN THE
RELIGION AND SCIENCE DIALOGUE, Zygon:
Journal of Religion and Science, Wiley. Joshua M.
Moritz,2012, DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01240.x), which I put a
link to put someone has removed the section
again! I'll quote some of the text here, it's
copyrighted but should be OK to quote a bit on this
talk page to illustrate the relevance:
39 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
"The idea that there were (or are) other humanoid beings who once
walked the earth is nothing new. The ancient Greeks wrote of strange
humanoid races, including centaurs and mermaids, and some, such as
the Milesian philosopher Anaximander, even suggested that human
beings originally emerged from an aquatic ancestor. As the book of
Genesis paints a picture of the earliest days of humanity, it tells us of an
antediluvian race with imposing physical strength that appears to be
unrelated to human beings: The Nephilim were on the earth in those
days. . . . These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of
renown (Genesis 6:4). Much later, during the rst century AD, the Greek
historian Pliny the Elder wrote of other nonhuman races and humanoid
monstrosities who lived in exotic distant lands. Plinys Natural History
was handed down to geographers of the Medieval Era, and the Plinian
races were held in the forefront of the minds of the early European
explorers. In this way, as the rst Europeans crossed the Atlantic into the
new world, they were already armed with cultural and physiological
taxonomies into which racial others and their traditions had long been
inserted. Thus Christopher Columbus, with his annotated copy of Plinys
Natural History in hand, and fully expecting to discover [...] As the
Modern Age awoke into history, the primeval accounts of other
human-like peoples fast became legend. Legend became myth. And for
over two centuries, as no human-like fossils had yet been discovered, the
notion that others had once walked the earth passed out of the realm of
empirical knowledge and into the domains of fantasy and speculation. [...]
. In our discovery of the fact that at one time we, as human beings, were
not alone in the universe, we ironically come closer to a more ancient
understanding of the human place in the cosmos. Though Neanderthals
may now take the taxonomical place of the mighty men who were of
old, the unique human species may once again be regarded as one
among many.
I'm not going to revert though as someone clearly
has a good reason for wanting to remove the
section, maybe we can have a discussion about it
here instead of an edit war?
Charleswfox (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it took me so long to notice a response! It appears that the
reference you found indeed does reference the article topic. My
40 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
tentative suggestion for summarizing it in the text would be
something along the lines of this: Some recent authors [insert
2012 ref here] have proposed that the Nephilim, the "mighty
men of old", and similar legends represent a distant folk
memory of remote times when other hominid types such as
Neanderthals roamed the Earth alongside our own ancestors.
Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the author of that article is an authority on Old
Testament studies, and I doubt very much that he can even read
Hebrew. Too tangential to include. PiCo (talk) 06:18, 8 June
2012 (UTC)
The latest science news is now saying that Neanderthals
did /not/ breed with H Sapiens, and the shared DNA is from
a common ancestor, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science
/science-news/9474109/Neanderthals-did-not-interbreed-
with-humans-scientists-nd.html). Also new homonid
species continue to be discovered (http://news.bbc.co.uk
/1/hi/8609192.stm) AFAIK the most recently exisiting
hominid was H Floriens which was around in 10,000BCE,
the time of cave art, early stonehenge building, and so
probably language, folklore and religion. So it still seems at
least conceivable that the nephilim are the folk memory
remnants of /some/ hominid species, if not Neanderthal
then perhaps a later or even undiscovered one. Can
anyone nd a better peer-reviewed paper than the Moritz
paper which mentions this explicitly? (Or maybe it's time to
write one... anyone fancy collaborating on that?) charles
Some more archeaological linguistics in the news
today, http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson
/2012/08/linguistic-archeology, suggests that langauge
rst appeared around about 10000-8000BC, which
would overlap with at least some hominids (though in
other parts of the world). Maybe there are are enough
bits of research like this to warrent writing a little
jounral paper somewhere, please message me if
anyone is interested in doing this properly, charles
Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.246 (talk)
10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Charles, as I said in May, you really should read
WP:OR particularly WP:SYNTH, and WP:TALK.
41 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
Do your sources mention the topic of Nephilim? If
not, then there's not much point to bringing them
up on Talk:Nephilim. Yes, your Moritz paper does
mention the Nephilim, suggesting they are a folk
memory of Neanderthals. So that one could
potentially be used in the Nephilim article. PiCo
thinks it is too tangential because Moritz might not
be an authority in Ancient Hebrew, but I know of
nothing in policy requiring expertise in Ancient
Hebrew for a POV to be attributed to a source. Til
Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Although the historicity of the Torah is
questionable, it also struck me that some
might have studied a possible link with late
non Homo Sapiens Sapiens humans and
uncommon (possibly mythical) beings, such
as the Nephilim. Having found nothing about
this on the article (unsurprisingly, though), I
then fell on this discussion. I think that this
reference seems worthy of a short mention,
even if the author wasn't an Aramaic or
Hebrew expert. This appears to me different
from a fringe view, considering the notability
of the discovery that humans may have met,
and possibly interbred with other human
species in the past. It also seems different
than "biblical archeology" pseudo-science, as
it is not enough to try to pretend that the
account is historical, it is merely a possible
relation with the accounts of those traditions.
As such there's no need to expand on the
topic either and reinterpret it, the reference
can simply be mentioned... How about a
single link to Archaic human admixture with
modern Homo sapiens in the See Also
section, annotated with the reference tag?
76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012
(UTC)
So the latest, latest science from
PlOS Genetics is now placing a
latest neanderthal-sapiens
interbreed date at 37,000BC , as
reported in
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
42 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
/sciencetech/article-2213219
/Neanderthals-bred-modern-
humans-Europe-recently-37-000-
years-ago.html . Seems there are
still papers coming out arguing both
sides of this as of 2013. Nice link
there by the way, thanks, interesting
to see there are two other known
interbreed ows with sapiens after
the neanderthal one there too, a
specimin of one, H. Denisovans, was
found in 2010 and the other is yet to
be discovered but is implied by the
genetics. - charles
Thanks for improving the lead
The lead seemed difcult 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)
Sirens = Mothers of Nephilim
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)
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)
Fossils of Giants
Are there true Nephilim fossils? These hybrids had probably awed
genetic structure? Maybe that's why they are huge. [5]
(http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=giants+fossils&hl=tr&source=lnms&
tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=L8VZUfGVOoTJPdCIgNAJ&sqi=2&
ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=506#hl=tr&tbm=isch&
sa=1&q=nephilim&oq=nephilim&
43 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
gs_l=img.1.0.0j0i24l9.12645.14063.8.20985.12.5.0.4.4.1.252.1125.2-5.5.
0...0.0...1c.1.7.img.0N2BXmuwj8Q&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&
bvm=bv.44442042,d.ZWU&fp=53ceeea133ce284e&biw=1024&bih=506&
imgrc=sZHLGUVE-sHEDM%3A
%3BDDiVQ98DGPVfjM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.greatdreams.
com%252Freptlan%252Fnephelim2.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fww
w.greatdreams.com%252Freptlan%252Fnephilim.htm%3B562%3B502
)--AltncTas (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Editor2020 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll preface by stating that anything which appears in the article
should reect 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 scientic
community does not recognize anything of the sort as
legitimate. Any assertions of this sort are regarded as
pseudoscientic. However, prior to the development of modern
scientic 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
scientic 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)
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)
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)
My responses: (1) We have an article about articial
44 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
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 AltncTas 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 identied a historical
ancient Near Eastern group or "mixture of groups" as
being at the root of the Nephilim tradition. If such an
identication 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)
Comment: I did a little follow-up on my suggestion that earlier
generations may have mistakenly identied fossils of extinct animals
as Nephilim remains. Sure enough, I discovered that Cotton Mather
made precisely such a claim about some skeletal remains which are
now known to be those of a mastodon. As the claim was made by a
famous individual, it is historically signicant so I have added it to the
article. As there's really no other place to put it, I created a new
section entitled "Identication with fossilized remains" which
admittedly is a bit of an orphan as the article generally concerns
biblical interpretation. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2013
(UTC)
aggeloi
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)
You are correct. The basic meaning of !""#$%& (plural !""#$%') is
"messenger." Occasionally the Greek Bible (Septuagint + New
45 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
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 !""#$%&. The Greek Bible
commonly applies it to spiritual beings who function as God's
messengers, from which we get the English word "angel." The
pertinent question with regards to the article is whether it is
appropriate to translate '%' !""#$%' (%) *#%) 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)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=wzh7LXv4sZkC&pg=PA207) and
Exploring The Epistle Of Jude (pg. 127) (http://books.google.com
/books?id=xxJfohBRxMAC&pg=PA127) Choosing another
translation for !""#$%' 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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=QGk5oSoKJDYC&
pg=PA70)). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Offspring of Seth.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nephilim&
diff=548730527&oldid=548727304)).
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
46 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
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)
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 "eshly" and the corresponding
Aramaic idiom certainly means humans. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:35,
6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that
Forbidden Theology: Origin of Scriptural God qualies as a
WP:RS. Flipping through the book's introduction and table of
contents via the Google Books preview
(http://books.google.com/books?id=LVtO_tgRJY0C&lpg=PA1&
dq=Forbidden%20Theology&pg=PA9#v=onepage), 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)
OK, I didn't spend enough time nding 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
47 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
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
identied with the "watchers". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:13,
6 April 2013 (UTC)
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 esh are the "sinful humanity". Til
Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
POV Intro
"The Nephilim /+n,f-.l/m/ were the offspring of the 'sons of God' and the
'daughters of men' according to Genesis 6:4; and giants who inhabited
Canaan according to Numbers 13:33" This is POV. It should say
something more to the effect of "According to Jewish tradition, the
Nephilim were the offspring of the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of
men' according to an interpretation of Genesis 6:4; and giants who
inhabited Canaan according to Numbers 13:3." The way it it is written
now sounds like the Nephilim are actually mentioned in the Bible, which
they are not. Rather, it is based off of folklore and ideology, not actual text
in the Old Testament. I've made an edit to better show this. Preceding
unsigned comment added by Superbuttons (talk contribs) 20:49, 1 July 2013
(UTC)
Genesis 6:4, Revised Standard Version: The Nephilim were on the
earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came
in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.
So maybe specify better what you mean, when you say they "are not
mentioned in the Bible"? They are certainly mentioned in some
translations. What the original Hebrew says, I couldn't tell you.
--Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
'Nephilim' certainly are mentioned in the original, which is in the
Hebrew language. Some sloppier translations may not translate
48 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
the text correctly, and may omit the name Nephilim or may
translate it as something else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:13, 1
July 2013 (UTC)
Mention crazy theories?
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-veriable, the fact that they exist and have
become a minor culural inuence certainly is. (For example I rst 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)
Anything can be mentioned provided it is a) reliably sourced, and b)
specically mentions the article topic, Nephilim. Til Eulenspiegel
/talk/ 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
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
Hey I was going to say that! I agree entirely. Dougweller
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
49 von 50 11.03.14 00:42
theories" might t the scope of Nephilim in popular
culture better than here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 6
November 2013 (UTC)
No, it's an issue over where to cover it. It's at
Sitchin and the popular culture article. Dougweller
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nephilim&
oldid=580479208"
Categories: C-Class Bible articles Unknown-importance Bible articles
Unassessed Ancient Near East articles
Unknown-importance Ancient Near East articles
Ancient Near East articles by assessment C-Class Judaism articles
Unknown-importance Judaism articles
Unassessed Christianity articles
Unknown-importance Christianity articles
This page was last modied on 6 November 2013 at 17:42.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-prot organization.
50 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

Talk:Nephilim - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Talk:Nephilim - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen