Orthodox view on the "Nephilim"

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

So, I'm subscribed to a YouTuber named "Pixels and Papyrus," he's a student of Hebrew who does pretty excellent videos - from a scholarly analysis - of trying to analyze and explain some of the weird, seemingly mythological elements of the Old Testament, and his latest video is on the "Nephilim."

The Bible verse in reference is Genesis 6:4.
"In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne [children] to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown."

And the question is: "What does 'giants' and 'sons of God' refer to?" Is this referring to a race of giants which were genetically formed from human beings? Or is this actually a reference to the "offspring" produced from "angelic beings" and "women"?

And while we might have an immediate intuition that it's the former, this video argues - pretty convincingly might I add (considering I'm not in stream with scholarly debate) that it's the latter.

So, after seeing this video, multiple questions enter into my mind:

1. Does the Orthodox Church have an official position on this matter?
2. If the "angelic beings" view is the more legitimate view, what do we make of the idea of the War in Heaven before all creation, and the nature of demons - Have demons always been immaterial? Can demons have intercourse and produce offspring with humans? And what do we make of Hell / Hades? Are there some demons in Hades right now, with some roaming the Earth?
3. If the "human beings" view is correct, how do you the argue against the evidence contradicting this view, especially with the fact that the Book of 2 Peter or the Book of Jude seem to quote almost verbatim the Book of Enoch, the Book which seems to accept the "angelic beings" view and is canonical within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?
4. In light of the Syncretism with Babylonian religion, what does this say about how we ought to view the Book of Genesis in it's literalness?

Thanks.

Lukaris · Feb 7, 2019

St. Irenaeus mentions these beings in His overview of the Bible in his work: On the Apostolic Preaching (ca. 170 AD).

Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 69-151.

Chapter 18 of the work.

He quotes the account from 2nd Peter & the book of Enoch.

icxn · Feb 7, 2019

Angels are immaterial beings, they have no gender nor do they procreate among themselves, much less with a human being that is of a different species.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

Lukaris said:
St. Irenaeus mentions these beings in His overview of the Bible in his work: On the Apostolic Preaching (ca. 170 AD).

Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 69-151.

Chapter 18 of the work.

He quotes the account from 2nd Peter & the book of Enoch.

Interesting. But that leads to a question of how angels could procreate with humans, considering they are immaterial and genderless.

And that's another question - if the Flood allegedly killed off every person except for Noah and his children how do we make of the fact that Goliath was one of these giants, after the Flood happened? If angels could copulate with humans after the flood, why don't they copulate now? Why are there no giants now?

ArmyMatt · Feb 7, 2019

icxn said:
Angels are immaterial beings, they have no gender nor do they procreate among themselves, much less with a human being that is of a different species.

this.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
this.

Welp, who knows. Many of the Earliest Fathers clearly held a view of Flat Earth, but obviously that ain't true.
Even if the angelic copulation thing is the proper view as viewed in Genesis (the Jews seem to hold that happened between Eve and Samael), it doesn't seem to be right - unless we are missing something with God forbidding angels from copulating years after the Flood.

I've heard that while the Ethiopians view Enoch as a part of the canon of Scripture, they do interpret it not too literally.

ArmyMatt · Feb 7, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
Welp, who knows. Many of the Earliest Fathers clearly held a view of Flat Earth, but obviously that ain't true.
Even if the angelic copulation thing is the proper view as viewed in Genesis (the Jews seem to hold that happened between Eve and Samael), it doesn't seem to be right - unless we are missing something with God forbidding angels from copulating years after the Flood.

I've heard that while the Ethiopians view Enoch as a part of the canon of Scripture, they do interpret it not too literally.

angels can't coppulate because they are immaterial. Christ Himself says that the angels are not married or given in marriage.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
angels can't coppulate because they are immaterial. Christ Himself says that the angels are not married or given in marriage.

That's kind of an important point.
But one wonders the meaning of Genesis - if maybe not everything is literal (visa vi Augustine), or perhaps this interpretation got screwed up due to Rabbinical theologumenons floating around, which not even the Apostles Jude and Peter escaped.

ArmyMatt · Feb 7, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
That's kind of an important point.
But one wonders the meaning of Genesis - if maybe not everything is literal (visa vi Augustine), or perhaps this interpretation got screwed up due to Rabbinical theologumenons floating around, which not even the Apostles Jude and Peter escaped.

what in Jude or Peter says anything about angelic relations with man.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
what in Jude or Peter says anything about angelic relations with man.

They didn't, but they were explicitly quoting a document which explicitly discusses angelic relations with man - to support their arguments, which shows that they saw it as authoritative to some degree - otherwise they wouldn't be quoting it.

Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 are explicitly quoting portions of Enoch; they're specifically quoting Enoch 10: 4-14

ArmyMatt · Feb 7, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
They weren't, they were explicitly quoting a document which explicitly discusses angelic relations with man to support their arguments, which shows that they saw it as authoritative to some degree - otherwise they wouldn't be quoting it.

Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 are explicitly quoting portions of Enoch; they're specifically quoting Enoch 10: 4-14

or they just saw the truth in the quotes they mentioned, and left the rest of that malarkey out.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
or they just saw the truth in the quotes they mentioned, and left the rest of that malarkey out.

The quotes they are referencing involve the angels who were fornicating with humans being cast into pits of darkness for their crimes, and reserved until the Day of Judgment, where they would then be cast into eternal fire.

While I'm not saying definitively that they believed in the story, it's very clear they are referencing the story to an audience that knows the story.

ArmyMatt · Feb 7, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
The quotes they are referencing involve the angels who were fornicating with humans being cast into pits of darkness for their crimes, and reserved until the Day of Judgment, where they would then be cast into eternal fire.

While I'm not saying definitively that they believed in the story, it's very clear they are referencing the story to an audience that knows the story.

sure, but just because they all probably knew the story, that doesn't mean they embraced everything that is said in the work or even the reference.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
sure, but just because they all probably knew the story, that doesn't mean they embraced everything that is said in the work or even the reference.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wouldn't know, I didn't meet the guys. Unfortunately, I'm not blessed to receive visions of them to clarify the historical record.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

Actually, Jude refers to angels fornicating.

"6 And angels who had not kept their own original state, but had abandoned their own dwelling, he keeps in eternal chains under gloomy darkness, to [the] judgment of [the] great day;

7 as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in a like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire."

In the Greek, "with them" is masculine, so "with them" can't be referring to the cities, which are feminine, but rather "angels", which are masculine.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/jud1.pdf

It could just be a reference to the story and not a complete endorsement of the story?

1stcenturylady · Feb 7, 2019

Lukaris said:
St. Irenaeus mentions these beings in His overview of the Bible in his work: On the Apostolic Preaching (ca. 170 AD).

Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (1920) pp. 69-151.

Chapter 18 of the work.

He quotes the account from 2nd Peter & the book of Enoch.

So Irenaeus said they were hybrids of angels with women, right? I don't have time to read all Irenaeus said, so need just the cliff notes, thanks.

1stcenturylady · Feb 7, 2019

The Genesis account also says that this would happen "afterwards" so that would account for Goliath and his nation.

It may still be happening today, as there are plenty of fallen angels around to breed with women.

TheLostCoin · Feb 7, 2019

1stcenturylady said:
The Genesis account also says that this would happen "afterwards" so that would account for Goliath and his nation.

It may still be happening today, as there are plenty of fallen angels around to breed with women.

I'm pretty sure it isn't - what race of people do you know are giants? Christ very explicitly says that angels don't enter into marriage.

1stcenturylady · Feb 7, 2019

TheLostCoin said:
I'm pretty sure it isn't - what race of people do you know are giants? Christ very explicitly says that angels don't enter into marriage.

They don't enter into marriage WITH EACH OTHER. They are sons of God, not sons and daughters of God. Homosexuality is an abomination.

Orthodox view on the "Nephilim"

A Lonesome Coin

Orthodox Christian

Bραδύγλωσσος αἰπόλος μαθητεύων κνίζειν συκάμινα

A Lonesome Coin

Regular Member

A Lonesome Coin

Regular Member

A Lonesome Coin

Regular Member

A Lonesome Coin

Regular Member

A Lonesome Coin

Regular Member

A Lonesome Coin

A Lonesome Coin

A Lonesome Coin

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

A Lonesome Coin

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency