Who were the Nephilim? UFOs? Aliens? Fallen angels? Sons of Cain? Or Ordinary Giants?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Who were the Nephilim? UFOs? Aliens? Fallen angels? Sons of Cain? Or Ordinary Giants?
If you want to see the entire live stream, see www.youtube.co...
We are leading an Egypt and the Bible tour on March 2025. If you want to participate in the tour or would like more information, the link is www.jcbs.org/t... . The link to register is in the "Departure Dates" box.
If you feel like directly supporting the work of this channel, consider purchasing Ancient Egypt and the Bible merchandise from our store ( my-store-d6b41... ) or by becoming a patron on my Patreon account ( / egyptandthebible ).
You can also support us through Paypal using the address ( davidfalk@zoho.com )
Also consider purchasing my book, “The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey.” Available now through most major book retailers.
We are raising funds for a new book project on the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.” In this book, we plan to delve into the Egyptian culture context of the plagues of the Exodus so as to discover what those plaques would have meant to the Egyptians.
If you would like to help us with this project or wish to support our work financially and don’t want to be a Patreon member, please consider a donation to my a crypto currency wallet for Monero XMR ( 46RXpVRn5QtK25gU1naVa72tWa1nGdfGwK8npLaAZKwKQp9i8qbe1CDS5cjVcNX4Ug47Uh5Q8kid3eDV5za9b4saQ5sEWf5 ) or Bitcoin BTC ( bc1qn4hykytwr4kh8c2z9w05mqcq040h9vgtwl0pt5 ). Or if you still trust GoFundMe, to my GoFundMe campaign ( www.gofundme.c... ).
If you want to continue on the conversation and meet other members of this community, you are invited to join us on our Discord community ( / discord )
The music for the open and closing credits was provided by Velocirabbit ( / velocirabbit - topic ).
![ได้เวลา! พาน้องแฝดฉีดวัคซีนครบ 1 เดือน🫣 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.52 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IzeLtaXBLNE/mqdefault.jpg)
If I got a nickel every time Dr. Falk was asked about the Nephilim, I'd be a billionaire😂
None enough ❤😂🎉
If I had a nickel for every time I didn't know what was going on, I'd be like "Where are all these Nickels coming from?"
@@TacoTuesday4 🤣Fair enough!
I know.... There is are some questions/objections I'm getting so often that I am going to be doing videos of them just so I can cut-and-paste the URLs. E.g., "What about 1 Kings 6:1?"
@@ancientegyptandthebible Sounds like a good idea!
I understand your role as a contrarian (with literally every subject) but aren’t you ignoring key accounts and evidence? It clearly states that the Bene Elohim took the daughters of men and conceived giants.
This was plainly the viewpoint of every ancient Hebrew (and other cultures) author. To adopt your viewpoint, one would have to completely disregard:
Jude
2 Peter
The Book of Enoch
Jubilees
Septuagint Genesis 6 (and other Masoretic texts)
Josephus
Job
And many other extra Biblical accounts.
Love you man and enjoy your insight on a great many things, but Heiser’s absolutely correct on this one.
Now, you have some real exegetical issues here. Jude, 2 Peter, and Job do not equate the Nephilim with giants. So you incorrectly use those sources. Jubilees, Enoch, and Josephus are non-canonical 2nd Temple Period literature, so you might as well cite a medieval source while you are at it. And the LXX version of Gen 6 is a translation, not a primary source. So, just because the meaning of Nephilim was lost by the time of that translation, doesn't mean that the original was read that way in its original context. Sorry, it's sloppiness like that which leaves me unconvinced of Heiser's case in this regard.
I totally respect your position on this subject but.............. they're aliens :P
😂
Oooh, I’m very glad you clipped this
These "mighty men of old" seem to be a feature in many ancient mythologies. I would call characters like Gilgamesh and Theseus analagous to nephilim. Not merely because of their notable feats of arms but also because of their role as founders of kingdoms and dynasties.
I've thought that for a long while, a "god" descends, produces a child with a woman, the child is unnaturally mighty. That's a default story for an ancient hero.
Of course, those "gods" are demons, and that child is what we know as a nephilim.
While I understand what you are saying about the defamation in Numbers 13, we do read later on in Joshua that they did find sons of Anak there and totally destroyed them in the land except in Gaza, Ashdod and Gath (where Goliath would come from, another giant that would be from that line). Aren't these all connected and those nephilim were just large people? I always took the defamation was about suggesting to not go in because it was scary, not because they were lying about what they saw.
We have no solid indication at all that the Anakim were tied to the Nephilim in any way. First, the sons of Anak were said to be as a rule taller than the normal Israelite according to Deut 1:28, but this appears to be exaggerated perception (per Num 13:33). They were Canaanites that inhabited the Judean foothills around Hebron. The excavation of Canaanite burials around Hebron suggest that they were no bigger than anyone else of the period. On the other hand, the Gathites were Philistines, and Goliath was an atypical size for a Philistine from Gath. So, Goliath was not related to the Anakim.
@@ancientegyptandthebible I do understand your point about the use of nephilim in Numbers 13 not equating to the Nephilim in Genesis. Although, we also see in Deut 2:10-11 again that the Anak were tall, but also now the Emim/Rephaim were as tall as them. This stretches in both directions as these groups are mentioned in the war of the kings in Abram's day in Gen 14 that Chedorlaomer smote them, that only Og king of Bashan remained of their residue in Deut 3, and then it gives us a few more sons of Rapha in 1 Sam 21 and 1 Chron 20, in which each of them from Gath and has significant stature, which again makes me think the height of the Anak in Numbers wasn't meant as an exaggeration. We have two mentions of taller people in Gath, the Anak in Joshua and the sons of Rapha in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.
My thought is this: by the time the Philistines show up from Greece in the 12th(?) century, these giants have mostly been destroyed and are very rare, but intermingling with the people of the region produces a few here and there in Philistine lands.
Now, archeology hasn't produced giants there. But, the Bible has this thread that runs from Genesis to Chronicles that keeps mentioning them in a way that seems too strong to ignore. I don't think I'd be willing to give up on that just yet.
@@joec5346
> I do understand your point about the use of nephilim in Numbers 13 not equating to the Nephilim in Genesis.
That's cool.
> Although, we also see in Deut 2:10-11 again that the Anak were tall, but also now the Emim/Rephaim were as tall as them.
Deut 2:10-12 is an anachronistic scribal gloss. So it's not good evidence.
> This stretches in both directions as these groups are mentioned in the war of the kings in Abram's day in Gen 14 that Chedorlaomer smote them,
Yes, they were there in Gen 14, but Gen 14 says nothing about their attributes.
> that only Og king of Bashan remained of their residue in Deut 3,
There is nothing that indicates that Og of Bashan was a giant. The anachronistic reference to him being a Rephaim in Deut 3:11 is a gloss. And the reference to Og's crazy iron bed is no proof he was a giant.
> and then it gives us a few more sons of Rapha in 1 Sam 21 and 1 Chron 20, in which each of them from Gath and has significant stature, which again makes me think the height of the Anak in Numbers wasn't meant as an exaggeration. We have two mentions of taller people in Gath, the Anak in Joshua and the sons of Rapha in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.
Nobody is contesting that giants are mentioned in the Bible. The Rephaim (of Samuel and Chronicles) are clearly described as giants in the physical sense. But how does this relate to the Anak or the Nephilim? The problem is that the connections made between the Rephaim and the Anak/Nephilim are really dubious and suspect. Numbers 13 is clearly an exaggeration. How can you take "We were like grasshoppers in their sight" as anything other than an exaggeration? Seriously?
> Now, archeology hasn't produced giants there. But, the Bible has this thread that runs from Genesis to Chronicles that keeps mentioning them in a way that seems too strong to ignore. I don't think I'd be willing to give up on that just yet.
The problem is the "lying" account in Numbers 13 claims that large Anakim were the normal. That should appear in the archaeological record. In Samuel and Chronicles, the text claims that giants from Gath are rare and unusual. Okay, the latter could evade archaeological discovery, but the former cannot. The only way to reconcile the former account is to go with the meaning implied by the Biblical text that this was an exaggeration.
@@ancientegyptandthebible thanks for the detailed explanation, I appreciate it!
@@ancientegyptandthebible Worth noting that when the Israelites do enter Canaan 40 years after the false report, there's no indication that the people there were extraordinarily tall. Rahab and her family appear to have just been normal people, for instance.
And of course there's no indication that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living among a bunch of giants before the sojourn to Egypt.
Wouldn't have been surprising, however, if some of the *soldiers* the first group of spies saw 40 years before were taller and/or stronger than average. Also wouldn't be terribly surprising if a bunch of malnourished, slave-driven Israelites were a bit smaller than average.
Very good! When I thought of Nephilim it has always occurred to me that these were fallen king priests. My thoughts were that we historically see aspects of this, with totalitarian rulers, who impose themselves above men, Shulgi of Ur III who imposes great bureaucracy, proclaims to be a god or even one who nurtures the garden. We see with King David how a prophet king falls from his connection with God because of his sins. Unique that he is know. For slaying a giant, and though he did not rule as those Nephilim of old, he fell like one. Just my observation, not claiming doctrine here.
Daughters of Adam means worshippers of Adam? Where on earth does that come from? The Jews are children of Abraham, but they don't worship him.
The entirety of the Gen 1-11 is ritual literature. It describes man's interactions with God in terms of the sacred and profane. However, we frequently find the term "sons/daughters of a god/goddess/famous human" used in ancient literature in a cultic fashion. Examples of this include the "sons of Ishtar" (the priesthood of Ishtar), the "sons of Baals" (the priests of Baal), and the "daughters of Hathor" (the priestesses of Hathor). And there were many cults of the ancient world that were dedicated to human beings, e.g., there are many funerary temples dedicated to kings that line the west bank of the Nile river.
Now, you broach the so-called "children of Abraham." This is not a cultic term per se. It is only used once in the Bible (John 8:39), and its use is not cultic. "Sons of..." can have either a genetic or a cultic meaning depending upon the context. "Sons of Israel" normally has a genetic meaning. "Sons of God" can have both meanings, although the cultic use is most common. However, the term "daughters of men (Adam)" is highly unusual. When it talks about women who are the "daughters of men" in general, it almost always uses the generic term for men (ish), e.g., Gen 24:13. Hence, a cultic use in Genesis 6 is the most likely reading.
Doesn't the statement of the report, even if it is false, imply that it was a common belief among the Israelites that the Nephilim (and by extension the Anakim who were in fact in Canaan) were people of exceptional size? Though granted that doesn't necessarily mean they were "giants" as we would think of them today.
It's possible that, by the 13th century BC, the Israelites thought that the Nephilim were people of exceptional size. It had been over a thousand years since a real Nephilim had existed at that point. Perceptions can change a lot in a 1000 years. And it is clear that the original Nephilim were not people of exceptional size, rather people of exceptional abilities. Think of them more like the Khan of the Eugenics Wars from the Star Trek universe. And the only thing that connected the Anakim to the Nephilim is that much later scribal gloss.
You know I had to click on this
This is an interesting stance on the Sons of God being priests of a religious order, and the daughters of men being of a female cult you call the "Daughters of Adam". Do you have any further evidence of the daughters of men being a cult? Because the Sons of God are differentiated from the daughters of men as not being born of man, but of God, hence angels. If the men were sons of man then the scripture would call them sons of man, same why Jesus is called Son of Man, being born of a human. So Sons of God implies angels, differentiated from daughters of men.
Secondly, these offspring were different or greater than average men. Your theory is that they were born physically greater than average men because of a spiritual practice the priests used to do? Do you have any more information about ancient practices and how this could've changed the physicality of offspring? Because the theory of angel blood mixed with human blood is a good explanation of how the Nephilim were called mighty men of old, and men of renown.
Those men of renown were those like that of Greek mythology such as Hercules; the so called demi-gods who were half man half angel having great strength or other abilities. As far as giants go, we know those existed too according to scripture, like Goliath and Og of Bashan.
> This is an interesting stance on the Sons of God being priests of a religious order, and the daughters of men being of a female cult you call the "Daughters of Adam". Do you have any further evidence of the daughters of men being a cult?
There is a lot of these groups running around during the Late Bronze Age. During that period, it was common for priests to be called "son of" and priestesses to be called "daughter of." We don't have specifically evidence for a "Daughters of Adam" cult since that probably would have gone extinct with the flood. However, there other "daughters of" cults running around at the time.
> Because the Sons of God are differentiated from the daughters of men as not being born of man, but of God, hence angels.
The problem is that "Sons of God" could be both divine beings or a cult. The term doesn't necessitate genetic descent. We have many examples of priest being named "Son of [name of a god]" in the ancient Near East. So, those examples are clearly not angels.
> If the men were sons of man then the scripture would call them sons of man, same why Jesus is called Son of Man, being born of a human. So Sons of God implies angels, differentiated from daughters of men.
Not necessarily. We have way too many counter-examples to make that blanket claim.
> Secondly, these offspring were different or greater than average men. Your theory is that they were born physically greater than average men because of a spiritual practice the priests used to do?
No, they were not necessarily born physically greater. But they would spiritually touched that gave them unique, often disruptive, destinies.
> Do you have any more information about ancient practices and how this could've changed the physicality of offspring?
I don't think it was necessarily physical.
> Because the theory of angel blood mixed with human blood is a good explanation of how the Nephilim were called mighty men of old, and men of renown.
The angel blood/DNA theory has been widely panned in the academic literature. It has disastrous consequences for federative responsibility and Christ's atonement. It's not a good theory and really needs to be rejected.
> Those men of renown were those like that of Greek mythology such as Hercules; the so called demi-gods who were half man half angel having great strength or other abilities.
Yet, the Bible doesn't go so far as to claim they were demigods or half-angels.
> As far as giants go, we know those existed too according to scripture, like Goliath and Og of Bashan.
Goliath was a giant. We told that by the text, but he has no relationship to the Nephilim. Og of Bashan was not a giant. Og was no more a giant than was Elvis Presley.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Thanks Dr. Falk. I like the idea that the "greatness" of the nephilim could be spiritually unique, disruptive destinies.
My bibles says the sons of Elohim and the daughter of humanity. My teachers say that Adam and his line were these sons and were given authority by God to be His rulers and priests. The line of Seth, as opposed to Cain. And that they were to keep to their line but started hooking up with any good looking floozie from the line of Cain. The rulers are supposed to set the example and because of their bad example, everybody started doing what they thought was right in their own eyes. So God had to wipe flood them out and start over with Government.
Because. The renowned one, those from the line of Adam and Seth, had fallen, taking almost the entirety of humanity with it. The Nephilim was the result of the renowned one leaving their assigned estate by interpreting with those outside their estate.
interbreeding
I think the trap people fall into is forgetting the unique of the First Adam who of course is similar to the Second or Last Adam. Both Heads of two different races: the fallen race v. members of His new creation.
Question concerning your point at 10:00: if they were lying and there was no nephilim, why didn't Joshua and Caleb call them out on their lies? Thanks!
Too many lying witnesses against them. The problem, when you deal with liars, is that when they lie once they will lie again to protect their prior lies. And in that culture, when two or more witnesses agree, they are presumed to be telling the truth. Joshua and Caleb were at a 5 to 1 disadvantage.
@@ancientegyptandthebibleoh ok! Thanks again
So in a way they were the forbidden 13th tribe of Israel.
No, they were not. The 12 tribes of Israel were the offspring of Jacob who, at this point, wouldn't be born for another 500 years or so (If you take the Genealogy in Genesis 11 as straightforward as possible, which I don't). If anything, the Nephilim were the offspring of the male descendants of Seth and the female descendants of Cain, OR the offspring of angels and human beings.
laying it on thick ( lol ) ! - i like that one Dr Falk , It kind of reminds me of what ( Rob - of Sentinel ) is doing with the muslims at the moment ? . He'll learn one day , that it's a pointless exercise in Futility . ( but , he tries ) hahaha . 🖖🖖🖖
If this interpretation is correct, it's a very ancient marker of power in ancient cultures! The most famous that come to my mind are Romulus and Remus who according to Livy were the sons of a Vestal Virgin (a woman who took a vow not to have conjugal relations). Then they were raised by a 'lupa' which means a she-wolf but is also slang for a prostitute. These themes echo throughout ancient myth. Very cool!
Romulus, Remus and the she-wolf I knew about but not the Vestal Virgin and she wolf being a prostitute. In some ancient temples and religions as well as Vestal Virgins and Priestesses there could also be Sacred Prostitutes, young woman who would spent a set period of time there prostituting herself in the service of the Goddess. So a Vestal Virgin gives birth to twins and a Sacred Prostitute who is leaving brings them up
Did they see shark with laser beams on their heads in Canaan?
02:55 - But "the Nephilim were in the earth those days, and also afterward" could still mean that they were destroyed in the Flood and appeared again after the flood after the angelic beings mated with humans a second time after the Flood. Then rumors and tales from surrounding regions of men who were demi-gods reemerged and spread again after the flood. This is just one of the conditions and "siuationships" that was present in Genesis chapters 4-6. Just because the angels did it once doesn't mean they couldn't do it again. Please note that the verses prior to the book of Numbers 13:32-33 in the "normal" report mentions superhuman-sized people; so, superhuman-sized people mentioned in Numbers 13:32-33 is not a complete lie. What inspired the "bad" report later in book of Numbers 13:32-33 was the fact that throughout Genesis and Deuteronomy there was a new rumor about the angelic beings mating with humans a second time. And the Nephilim's descendants went by other names this time besides sons of Anak. Throughout Genesis and Deuteronomy were described as being superhuman in size and being; that is, destroyed Adamites - heroes of old mythology. The "bad" report was "bad" not because it was entirely untrue but the way it was used as a fearmongering tactic. However, this also was a strategic way to build up a form of dehumanization the people of Canaan in order to destroy them in genocide.
> 02:55 - But "the Nephilim were in the earth those days, and also afterward" could still mean that they were destroyed in the Flood and appeared again after the flood after the angelic beings mated with humans a second time after the Flood.
Could be? How about what is true according to the evidence? The Biblical evidence tells us that the Nephilim were men. Angels had nothing to do with it.
> Then rumors and tales from surrounding regions of men who were demi-gods reemerged and spread again after the flood.
I hope you are not into believing rumors. Again, the evidence tells us that they were not demigods.
> This is just one of the conditions and "siuationships" that was present in Genesis chapters 4-6.
That's circular reasoning. You've just assumed your conclusion.
> Just because the angels did it once doesn't mean they couldn't do it again.
You never showed they did it the first time, and all the Biblical evidence is against that proposition.
> Please note that the verses prior to the book of Numbers 13:32-33 in the "normal" report mentions superhuman-sized people; so, superhuman-sized people mentioned in Numbers 13:32-33 is not a complete lie.
Which verses are those? And not even Numbers 13 connotes that the people were "superhuman-size," only that they are bigger. How much is bigger? 6ft tall vs 4 ft tall? The idea that these people were superhuman-sized is eisegesis.
> What inspired the "bad" report later in book of Numbers 13:32-33 was the fact that throughout Genesis and Deuteronomy there was a new rumor about the angelic beings mating with humans a second time.
That's an assumption not supported by the text.
> And the Nephilim's descendants went by other names this time besides sons of Anak.
That too is an assumption not supported by the text.
> Throughout Genesis and Deuteronomy were described as being superhuman in size and being; that is, destroyed Adamites - heroes of old mythology.
Pure fantasy.
> The "bad" report was "bad" not because it was entirely untrue but the way it was used as a fearmongering tactic.
If it was a bad (or unfavorable) report that was true, the writer would have used the term ra`a to indicate that. Instead, the writer uses the term dibbah which mean bad as in defamatory or lying. It was fear mongering, but it was fear mongering to prevent the Israelites from going into the Promised Land.
> However, this also was a strategic way to build up a form of dehumanization the people of Canaan in order to destroy them in genocide.
Not really. It's clear from the text that spies did their false report in order to prevent the nation from entering Canaan.
5:56 How did you know to look up the acadian? And where did you find the acadian translation?
You could do it the hard way like I did and learn how to read Akkadian. But you might be able to get by with transliterations of the texts (published in various sources) and rely upon the CAD (Chicago Akkadian Dictionary) to aid you in your translation.
Could be!
Would I be right to reword your view of Nephilim as syncretistic cults? As Genesis 6 is displaying a society that worships Adam and has ritual "relations" with lesser gods, but hold some understanding of the God that made Adam?
If it does, than that would be interesting contrast to the descendants of Cain in the previous chapter who appear to abandon God, but who are farther away from the consequences of the Flood. Perhaps another case in history of heresy being seen as more dangerous than out right rejection.
> Would I be right to reword your view of Nephilim as syncretistic cults?
That could be one of the outcomes of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of Adam." New religious movements often arise from older religious movements.
> As Genesis 6 is displaying a society that worships Adam and has ritual "relations" with lesser gods, but hold some understanding of the God that made Adam?
Yes.
> If it does, than that would be interesting contrast to the descendants of Cain in the previous chapter who appear to abandon God, but who are farther away from the consequences of the Flood. Perhaps another case in history of heresy being seen as more dangerous than out right rejection.
Indeed. It is worth thinking about.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Awesome. This is definitely the first time I have heard this explanation, and it is definitely less crazy than Nordic Aliens trading advanced technology for marriages.😄
LOL ALIENS you say 😂😂😂
The issue is that there is absolutely no external evidence for this interpretation of a cult of Adam as an ancestor cult. There is a reason why Heiser's view is the consensus scholarly view. There are late Second Temple Jewish writings that in fact assert that certain select nephilim survive the flood. There are many characters in Mesopotamian mythology (king list if I'm not mistaken) who are said to be two-thirds divine & one-thirds human BEFORE the flood-but having a LESSER proportion of divinity AFTER the flood. That is enough to explain "also after that". Some Jewish literature even have Noah be a giant
The Assyriologist Amar Annus has a journal article (or is it a book?) on the Mesopotamian background for both that passage and the ensuing Enochic literature
Dr Falk's interpretation of the spies report is unsatisfactory & fails to realise that this is a LITERARY creation - the author wouldn't put those words in the mouths of even the defamatory spies if they weren't meant to be an exaggeration of a REALITY. Why would the author mention tall men if there was no such thing conceivable in reality? Even the land devouring its inhabitants is surprisingly taken too literally to a comic extent - when it was clearly referring to the possibility of agricultural failure
> The issue is that there is absolutely no external evidence for this interpretation of a cult of Adam as an ancestor cult.
Except all the ancestor cults and ancestor worship that was running around the landscape during the LBA.
> There is a reason why Heiser's view is the consensus scholarly view.
He's not the consensus view because there is no consensus here. It's best not to play fast and loose with the word "consensus" with regard to Gen 6. There is over a hundred years of scholarly literature debating the meaning of Gen 6:1-4 with new papers being published annually. It is one of the hottest debates in Biblical literature. Heiser has received a lot of traction in the evangelical and Biblically conservative communities, but that doesn't a consensus make.
> There are late Second Temple Jewish writings that in fact assert that certain select nephilim survive the flood.
Yes, and there is a lot of 2TP literature that is wrong too. 2TP literature is rife with fantasy and speculation over things it has no direct knowledge of. That's why one needs to be careful to compare like literature to other contemporary like literature.
> There are many characters in Mesopotamian mythology (king list if I'm not mistaken) who are said to be two-thirds divine & one-thirds human BEFORE the flood-but having a LESSER proportion of divinity AFTER the flood.
Care to amplify?
> That is enough to explain "also after that". Some Jewish literature even have Noah be a giant
The broken vow view is also enough to explain the "also after that." You don't need to resort to the giant hypothesis for which we have no evidence.
> Dr Falk's interpretation of the spies report is unsatisfactory & fails to realise that this is a LITERARY creation - the author wouldn't put those words in the mouths of even the defamatory spies if they weren't meant to be an exaggeration of a REALITY.
I never said the writer put words into the spies mouth. I realize that this is a literary creation, but that isn't antithetical to the spies' report being defamatory or exaggerated. Quite the opposite, I think that the author was faithfully reporting what the spies said and the message they conveyed.
> Why would the author mention tall men if there was no such thing conceivable in reality?
They spies said that the men were "men of size." That could mean tall. But is that a measure of height or a perception of stature? In fact, a careful reading of the text makes it clear that this is a perception, not a reality. See "we became like grasshoppers in our own sight" (Num 13:33). This shows that these men made the Israelite spies FEEL small. The text shows a failure of faith, not a physical reality.
> Even the land devouring its inhabitants is surprisingly taken too literally to a comic extent - when it was clearly referring to the possibility of agricultural failure
Yes, but that is the point of the text. It is comic in its hyperbole. That's how you are supposed to read the text. And the narrator sets it up that way, so that's how the text is expected to be read. This is done for literary effect.
Genesis 1 is ELOHIM (Lucifer and the fallen angels).
They made this realm.
They made man in their image.
Man is an idol, a trap to hunt angels.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in their system.
Wanna see a fallen angel? LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
One Gospel:
Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
So if what the 10 spies said about the inhabitants stature was untrue wouldn't Joshua and Caleb have contradicted them? Instead they simply affirmed that they could be overcome.
It's a collusion paradox. A majority colludes in a lie. You have 10 liars against 2 people who want to tell the truth. There is a 5 to 1 disadvantage in terms of being believed. No one is going to believe the truth because the vast majority of witnesses aren't telling the truth. You also know that those who lie once are willing to lie again to protect the first lie. It is an impossible situation. Your best strategy in this situation, which Joshua and Caleb do here, is to reframe the lie by say "yes, and [add your own attempt to reframe the lie]." This is why the narrator's input here is so important. That input has the value of hindsight in telling us that the testimony of the 10 is defamatory, so the reader can weigh and understand exactly what is happening in this exchange. As the old saying goes, there are three sides to any argument: my side, your side, and the truth. In this case, we have the side of the 10, the side of the 2, and the truth as expressed by the narrator.
While I deeply respect and love Heiser, im skeptical of his position when it comes to the nephilim stuff. Could he be right, maybe? But this view of the nephilim is seated on the sands of conspiracy advocates far too much for my liking. Ppl like Steve Quayle, L. A Marzulli, Timothy Alberino, the late Tom Horn and a few others whose names escape me are some of the main individuals who advocate for such a position, and if you know anything about these ppl especially Steve who in his actions almost fancy’s himself as a modern day prophet, (not that he would verbally concur, but he stinks of that air) it’s just a can of worms that ought to stay closed. Even Heiser has had to reel it back in on his Fringepop channel and debunk a lot of the nonsense these ppl have touted.
Do you think everythng is humorous?
Luke Skywalker is a Nephilim conformed!
🤣🤣🤣
So in the context of the bad report when its stated that they seen Nephilim and they were like grasshoppers to the Nephilim, were the spies equating the Nephilim to giants?
They imply they were LIKE giants without exactly saying they were giants.
@@ancientegyptandthebible that's a important detail. If the Bible isn't making them the same, then we shouldnt either.
I know my comment is late now, but I just want to ask: what do you think about InspiringPhilosophy’s view on the Nephilim? Because I am now holding this view, but I’m quite agnostic about this after watching your video.
I haven't spoken to IP about this subject. But he's about 90% there. He is absolutely correct that the text is explicitly talking about classes of humans. He would say that the sons of God were polygamous kings, whereas I would say that the sons of God were a caste of priests. However, it should be noted that kings were both rulers and priests. So, this could be a case where we are both partially right.
@@ancientegyptandthebible So do you think the kings and priests from many nations who worship different gods still considered ‘Sons of God’? Since you mentioned Sargon of Akkad. Sorry for having too many questions, but I am confused on the fact that when you said Daughter of Man are cults, so do you think it is talking about just worshipping ancestors or also idols?
And also thank you - Dr. Falk - for answering my questions.
@@TombaoT-gc4ri
> So do you think the kings and priests from many nations who worship different gods still considered ‘Sons of God’?
Sometimes. Kings of the ancient world were often regarded as the son of a god.
> Since you mentioned Sargon of Akkad. Sorry for having too many questions, but I am confused on the fact that when you said Daughter of Man are cults, so do you think it is talking about just worshipping ancestors or also idols?
No, it's not about worshipping ancestors or idols. It's about worshipping ancestors, and worshipping false gods, and entering into sexual vows and false ritual practices. It's about rejecting all aspects of sound orthodoxy and practice, and the outcomes that result from that. But this is all taking place during a time when the sins of men have an effect on the fertility of the land. This is a complex formula that would be very difficult to replicate today.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Oh, I understand it now. Thank you for answering, Dr. Falk.
I took a look at my NRSVue and it says it was an “unfavorable report”
Interesting I hadn’t heard this thanks for the encite
Sargon was pretty impressive. Would you say there was no principality or spiritual influence acting upon or through him?
It's hard to say. He claims the gods were with him. Who can say what influences he might have had?
Very informative. Please explain who was Melchizedek in the Bible?
Hi sir can you assist us why angels considered among acadamia because it gave me nonsense saying angels because you're the only scholar in TH-cam as scholar who argue those.
Thanks God bless you. Am enjoying it
There has been over a hundred years of scholarly debate over the issue of Gen 6. Hundreds of academic papers have been written on this subject. Most will argue that neither the "Nephilim" nor "the sons of God" in Genesis 6 are angels. During that time, the majority position in the scholarship has been that the "sons of God" are the godly line of Seth and the "daughters of men" are the ungodly like of Cain. The view that the "sons of God" are angels has been savaged and rubbished completely in the academic literature. Unfortunately, most people don't have access to that academic literature, and TH-cam tends to amplify fringe views.
Sweet I got clipped lol
What about the Septuagint translation of this verse and the book of Enoch which expresses the understanding of some Jews of this event?
Both the LXX and Enoch are 2nd Temple Period literature, which post-date the fourth century BC. A lot of understanding had been lost by that point. It is bad methodology to draw meanings from 2TP lit in order to understand LBA lit. You have a 1000 year separation between the two corpora.
@@ancientegyptandthebible thank you for the response!
I took a look at my NRSVue and it says it was an “unfavorable report”
Typical NRSVue watering down of vivid nuance into milquetoast prose.
@@ancientegyptandthebible The regular NRSV says the same thing
@@ancientegyptandthebible Also for comparison the NABRE says “They spread discouraging reports among the Israelites about the land they had reconnoitered”
@@Kakaragi It means "evil, defamatory, whispering" in the Hebrew. Various translators will add their own spin to that.
@@ancientegyptandthebible What is your stance on Psalm 22 and what it says based on the original Hebrew?
I would be very curious of your thoughts on Fr Stephen De Young's position of this. His view overlaps your view and Heiser's.
I haven't yet read De Young's position on this.
@@ancientegyptandthebible Are you familiar with his work? I find him to be a very interesting Bible scholar.
@@rockytopbritt He's only just recently come onto my radar. But I haven't read any of his work yet.
I was going to also ask about Fr. Stephen De Young!
You guys should do a discussion on the topic :)
In short, he uses other ancient ugaritic texts to shine light on the possibility of the Nephilim being connected to a specific type of pagan worship ritual.
He goes into depth about it in "A Land of Giants" episode of "The Lord of Sprits" podcast
@@georgecrosthwaite The connection they make to King Ogs bed and the pagan rituals is fascinating and makes a lot of sense.