I would encourage you if you haven’t already to go back and read about the origin of the different bodily characteristics like eye, skin and hair color, as well as blood factors like RH-and the conclusions I come to about then, and then we can compare that to the ancient texts, including the Bible, and see how they all fit in.
First let me say that while having grown up highly religious as a evangelists child, and having attended Bible school, now I have no religious biases, nor will I stand up for one Holy book’s “belief” system over another. I simply try to look at the facts, and share info with my readers from a large worldview, as my rare ENTP personality is prone to do. Unfortunately, when your worldview is led by (a cultural reading of) the Bible, sometimes you miss the author’s actual intent that often get lost in translation and time. Often things take on a whole different meaning to a crowd naive to the culture, which is one reason people going to Bible school come out as Atheists when they learn all the different meanings of things in the Bible. You can’t read the Bible with eyes from today’s culture.
For instance, people often claim the title “God’s chosen people”, saying it ties to your ancestry, either by blood or spiritual ancestry and “adoption”. Basically that makes a Jew or Christian (or whoever else tries to claim the title) pretty special! It makes you a son or daughter of the King! And even those who love or protect you will be blessed the Bible says!
Many people, including myself, have sought to discredit Christianity and those “fool enough” to still believe in it by looking at the stupid sheep in mainstream Christianity for their sources of ammo. While there is no shortage of idiots and even violence in mainstream Christianity around the world now, those aren’t the intellects in Christianity, nor is it the fault of the Bible, as much as the people, as all good Christians will point out. The same arguments are used against other religions due to some extreme people in them.
Honestly, the Bible and the other religious books have much good in them, that when properly understood, from a historical or non-embittered perspective, it can make a lot of sense and can help people understand our past. (At least as much as any ancient text can.) People will always read into things what they already believe though to some degree, so that is why people with biases and closed minds will always come up with new doctrines from old writings, that were never believed in the past.
Insecure Atheists and agnostics want to throw out the Bible as all fairy tale, so that they don’t have to believe any of it is not fairy tale. . .I think that this “all or nothing” mentality is bound to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” The understanding we can glean from the Bible about our origins isn’t as whacked out as we may first think . ..people’s presumptions about it are.
Let’s go over what that ancient text actually tells us of our beginning. First God said, “let US make man in our OUR image “(Genesis 1:26).
Christian’s think of God as 3 persons, or “The Trinity”, so that’s why it seems logical to them to say that “He” is one God, and yet speaks as a group of gods. . .the logic of which reasoning is rarely questioned of course. The three in one is described as three parts to an egg and left at that
The only problem with that belief is that there is really very little evidence for a monotheistic belief in ancient history, although some believe a Pharaoh called Akhenaten in the 18th Dynasty or the new kingdom brought in that belief for the first time. The god he claimed to be the only one was named Aten. Ironically the pharaoh’s name meant “effective for Aten.” If this man, the father of King Tut, was suppose to be equated with Moses, who wrote the books of Moses in 1,300 BC, why did he leave his young son in Egypt instead of taking him at the great exodus? There are many issues with this man being Moses. . .and there is no historical validation he even existed actually.
Monotheism was certainly unheard of before the books of Moses in the Old testament. . .and while Moses was said to have written books that state a command about having no other gods put before Jehovah, presumably being equated with Aten, that is admitting to other gods being just as real! Also, if he wrote the books, how was his death written about in one of them, Deuteronomy?
What it comes down to is this: if those close to the creation timeline (similar in just about every culture of the world) couldn’t get their stories clear, then those further removed likely got it even more messed up. . . as that is just how it goes, like the game of telephone. Oral tradition is highly inaccurate not because they do not repeat what they hear, but because they are removed from the culture and often have no clue what something means, but just repeat it blindly anyways. So, do we really have the gall to think we know about the evidence surrounding “God” better then those who spoke directly to him/them in the garden of Eden?!
What do we know about history and what did change? The Catholic church clearly added the “Holy Spirit” concept to make up for the issue of plural speaking in the Bible. In 1 John 5:7 it seems to be clearly stating that God is not only father, like all the other cultures claim, but that the son, Jesus, (“begotten not created”) and the very unclear Spirit are one. There, problem solved! The verse goes like this. “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
When you take out the part the church added: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”, we are left with gods again. . .That verse is the only and clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Trinity, yet it is missing in many translations like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and Jehovah witness versions. Because it is not found in the Greek manuscripts! For this reason it should not be included in the Bible at all.
Without the ” Holy Spirit” part of the “Godhead” whom was supposedly only imparted to Christians at the Pentecost (which is easily explained away as the conscience BTW) the children of God would have had no call to say that “God” was speaking to them, or inspired them to write his words.
God was described as a physical being who “walked” with Adam in the garden. . .and other things that show his humanity. “US” and “OUR” used in many places was a reference to more then one physical god speaking. In the oldest book of Job we have a counsel of gods with a leader, who actually sounds identical to all the Greek, Roman and Babylonian pantheon of gods. Satan was not described as a bad guy either, simply an adversary of man, like those who refused to give fire to man in other myths. In fact the term adversary was used to describe even the head god’s role at times! (Leading many to speculate that God and Satan are the same, instead of what we see linguistically, that an adversary being a verb, turned into a specific adversary, a noun as the concept of a perfect all powerful being emerged. There is always a nemesis for good, as there is a yin for a yang. The evolution of a perfect being created a vacuum for the evil being, in order to explain what we see in the chaotic universe.
Without a perfect being, there were just mainly good and adored beings, not unlike how the legends of Santa have evolved from a good man. . .and Satan evolved from numerous characters including a lower god who was skeptical. Some claim that the “us” and “our” way of speaking that “God” always used was just a way royals use to talked. What makes more sense culturally though is that God was talking to a group of peers, or a counsel or pantheon of gods. And if so, do we now have to consider all the ancient texts in their writings of their gods as on par with the Christians rendering of God? Are they talking of the same beings? Maybe we can find out by looking more closely at some of the most tricky and misunderstood verses in the Bible, and cross reference a little. . .
We know that most of the academic Jews didn’t apparently embrace Jesus as God. . .and god’s son went through a lot of evolutions. The Bible also speaks of other “sons of God” or “Angels” than Jesus in the beginning. Let’s look at the ancient understanding of those terms to find some enlightenment on why. First, some context: “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives, all of which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [had sexual relations with them], that they bare CHILDREN to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN which were of old, men of renown” (Gen.6:1-4). Where these “sons of God” like Jesus, the only begotten son?! Same term used, right?
The Apocrypha was a highly respected part of the Bible up until the last few hundred years, when it’s many implications were misunderstood and thrown out by most of Christianity. Enoch 6:2 of the Apocrypha is a parallel passage to those very tricky verses in the Bible. Enoch puts it this way, “And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'”
Enoch also removes any doubt that the “giants” or “mighty men” were the children of these “unholy” unions. Further, it is a fascinating read as it describes the children of God/angels, their children, and the punishments meted out on them for these mixed marriages. Enoch’s translation into heaven, also could be looked at as an alien abduction (which he came back from to write the book of Enoch) is also described in great detail and takes very little imagination to interpret what happened to him. . .
In Bible college they often bring up the difficulty of interpreting Genesis 6 and yet I wonder why the book of Enoch is never brought into the discussion, as it fills in all the gaps. I highly suggest checking it out!
I will take the viewpoint that was widely held in the world of the first century CE, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus: the terms “angels”, “sons of God”, and “the children of heaven” are definately synonymous in these two passages.
Also, the Bible verses talking about “the sons of God”(otherwise understood as “Angels” or the “children of Heaven”) usually spoke of them coming from the heavens, which was always just referring to “above”. . . the Bible just means they came from the sky. In other places it describes the gods having “high places” set up.
Enoch describes these “children of heaven” as “descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon,” which seems to imply from the sky to the high mountain elevations. The highest mountains are actually often the oldest land ironically, thanks to the movement of the plates or the expanding earth theory, which shows the layers get older as they rise.
The Bible also speaks of “the Holy mountain of God” trembling and fire coming from the top of it. This is consistent with other ancient texts depictions of their gods living on the tops of mountains in their houses. For instance, the gods at mount Olympus in Greek mythology certainly sound suspiciously familiar to the tales in the Bible. Some of the gods may have been particularly suited to the high elevations and maybe did not come down! This genetic predisposition to being comfortable on the high elevations could have actually passed on to these mixed children. . .and there is some evidence of that amazingly! (I will get into that later though.)
These gods or “Angels” having to “come down” often leads to the speculation of the “Angels” being “fallen” in grace or status to have come down to the women, but there is no reference to them being in disfavor with God or the gods on the mountain, or in the sky before they started mingling with the woman.” The Bible speaks of Satan giving a report to these “God(s)” : And the LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” He certainly didn’t seem to be doing any harm, but he was apparently watching man.
The book of Enoch actually calls these same “sons of God”, or “Angels”, the “watchers”. The Aramaic term “Watchers” is “peculiar to apocalyptic literature”. Yet it is also in Daniel.
“I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven.
In 1 Enoch the Watchers
- are ‘holy angels who watch’ (20:1)
- are of the higher class of angels like the archangels, cherubim and seraphim,
- are ‘the eternal watchers’ (41:1) in the presence of God
- belong to the Great Holy One (12:3)
- do not sleep but stand before the glory of God (39:12, 61:12, 71:7)
- never depart from the Great One (14:23)
- are known as “sons of heaven” (6:2; 13:8; 14:3)
- have been given the secrets of the heavens (9:6; 16:3)
- are appointed to fulfill certain duties (20:1-8)
There are usually 4 leader watchers: Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael. Michael and Gabriel are spoken of in the Bible as good, “Arch Angels”,but the ones in Enoch are said to be a group of 200 watchers, led by Shemihazah/Semyaz (6:3) or by Azael/Azazel (8:1; 10:4; 13:1).
These Angels who “fell”, bound themselves by an oath to leave “heaven” and descend to earth to marry the daughters of earth (Enoch 6:3-5). The Watchers also taught the people on earth the “eternal secrets that are performed in heaven” (9:6). The dastardly wicked art of making metal weapons, arts, crafts, incantations, astrology, cosmetics and bracelets (8:1-4)-yes I’m being sarcastic-
The concept of Heaven being in a mystical realm with only perfect spirit beings living in perfect bliss kind of gets thrown out when you read that “weapons”, “incantations” (which was apparently well looked on then)”astrology” and such frivolities as make up and jewelry is in “Heaven”. . .as that obviously doesn’t fit in with the picture that has evolved of Heaven, the church threw it out. It is nonetheless consistent with other ancient texts.
Back to the “Watchers” or the so called “fallen” angels: they are so filled with shame for breeding with these woman that they cannot speak or raise their eyes to heaven. (1 Enoch 13:5) They are said to be the cause of all the “evil” that entered the world.
The Damascus Covenant of Qumran describes the two-fold “sin” of the Watchers of heaven:
- they follow the “eyes of whoredom” (2:16)
- they “walked in the stubbornness of their hearts”, following their own ways and rejecting their leader or God’s commands (2:17-18)
Enoch also speaks of “the hardness of the heart” of the Watchers when they taught the mysteries of heaven to women on earth (16:3). Let’s see, you love a primitive woman, and want to enlighten her to the higher ways of the gods, and the gods are mad. . .as in other myths where they were angry at Prometheus for giving people fire.
So who were these “sons of God” or “Angels” in Genesis 6:1-4? There have been several suggestions as to who they were and why the children they had with “daughters of men” grew into a race of giants. The three primary views on the identity of “the sons of God” are
1) they were “fallen” angels, mistaken as morally evil as opposed to coming down or descending from the heavens
2) they were powerful and physically strong, mixed race people, or
3) they were descendants of Seth intermarrying with descendants of Cain. All sons of Adam and Eve, so. . .can obviously breed with no issue.
Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6;2:1; 38:7). Later Jesus and his followers were also given this title though! Another problem with the sons of God being Angels, which is synonymous with gods is that in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. . .so if we are to believe the evolved New testament, instead of the older texts, Angels and gods don’t marry.
The weakness of view 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were different, whether “giants”, “Mighty men”, “heroes of old or men of renown.” These may be misunderstood translations evolved by the culture and simply insinuating that they were men of war and strong though.
Further, why would “God” decide to bring destruction (the flood) to the earth due to the wickedness of these people (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is clearly linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4 that caused much wickedness and divorce until the “day the Noah entered into the ark.” Only the breeding with a different and hated earthly people group would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.
When the Bible speaks of “sons of god” who consorted with “the daughters of men”, it is looked on very unfavorably. These Angels were not allowed to return to Heaven for this act.
These mighty men could be linked to the illegitimate children of the gods . When, for instance, Zeus snuck out on Hera his wife to mate with the earthly woman it created the strong demi-god Hercules. . .who’s name ironically means “gift of Hera.”
Hera went on to try to murder this child of the affair by supposedly sending two snakes to kill him. . .and she was later blamed for Hercules’s angry rage when likely drunk, he killed the princess he had won from the King of Thebes as a prize for fighting. He killed their 3 young sons as well! Then sadly he spent the rest of his life trying to atone for his sin and be accepted by the gods. The plight of the demi-gods or mighty men was a sad one of neither fitting in with the gods, or the humans.
In other mythology, the demigods, giants or mighty men from these mixed marriages are also referred to later in the Hebrew Bible as “nephilim.” This word translated as “giants” actually means the following, from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible#5303:
nephiyl (nefeel’); or nephil (nefeel’); from 5307; which means properly a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.
So it really doesn’t mean a giant like the one in Jack and the Beanstalk but rather a bully or tyrant, possibly of large stature. If we look in dictionaries like Nelson’s we will see something like the following:
NEPHILIM, a word of uncertain meaning (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33), (NIV, NEB, NASB, RSV translations), translated as giants by the KJV and NKJV. Some scholars believe . . . were descended from famous rulers, outstanding leaders, and mighty warriors who lived before the Flood.
The Bible speaks of these Nephilim before the flood as being wicked and full of evil, so God planned to destroy these bullies with a flood. Again, this is described in The Book of Enoch. So, whether they were evil due to blood from Cain, or another line, these people were apparently the reason for the destruction of all but Noah and his family.
Only Noah and his family had a pure bloodline from Adam the Bible tells us and consequently was given a warning about the impending flood to wipe out the wicked giants, or bullies from these mixed marriages.
The Bible puts it this way, “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen.6:9). God told Noah in Gen. 6:18 “But with thee will I establish my covenant.”
The rest of mankind had become corrupted through intermarriage with a hated race.
The giants survived the flood though, as we see them again in Num.13:32-33 as the sons of Anak. “And there we saw the GIANTS, the sons of Anak, which come of the GIANTS: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight” (The word for “giants” here is the same word used in Genesis 6:4 — the Nephilim.) Obviously, therefore, some of them lived after the Flood.
“God” commanded the destruction of these giants (Nephilim) to be carried out by the Israelites, and it was apparently necessary for their eradication, as the Flood had been before for that purpose, because the god(s) were not interested in having a world of violence again, but wanted to start fresh with Noah and his children, a peaceful people.
The Rephaim were another name for the descendants of the giants which existed after the Flood. Moses also talks of the land of Moab saying, “That also was accounted a land of giants; GIANTS dwelt therein in old time. . . the LORD destroyed them before them (god’s children); and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead” Deut.2:20-21
God clarifies that, “It is not because of your [God’s chosen people’s] righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 9:5
The Scriptures tell us that young David slew Goliath (whose name means “an exile”) a giant over 9 feet tall! Some say that he was probably a descendant from the ancient Rephaim, certainly he was a bully and at least took refuge among the Philistines . . .or was one. (Deut.2:20-21; II Sam.21:22).
The Anakim (‘anna -‘keem)- another race of “giants” or mighty men/bullies descended from the sons of gods/Angels are mentioned ten times in the Bible, Duet 1:28, 2:10, 2:11, 2:21, 9:2, Josh. 11:21, 11:22, 14:12, 14:15, and Joshua 47:5. There were nearly a dozen different named groups of “Giants” during the time of Israel’s captivity in Egypt. . .a time where a lot of different colored people also showed up in art work.
If these many groups of “giants” bullies or tall men of legend and the Bible were real, then they were likely not only in the middle east.
Giants are a common tale in areas of Europe, and believed to be the origin of the Greek legends of “demi-gods” “Giant-legends of this class are common in Asia too, where the big and “stupid” giants would seem to have been barbaric often mixed tribes.
The Giants or tall bullies were experiments of the “Angels” or “sons of God” gone wrong some would say, a product of their uncontrolled lusts. The first interbreeding of these ancient Angel type “gods” with common man, according to many different ancient sources.
Making public the many sites of these giant’s remains in Egypt, Asia, the Middle east, and Europe, and allowing scientists to analyze the DNA, blood type, and RH factor would likely lead to some very interesting conclusions.. . . instead the powers that be tell us the pictures of giants are all a hoax, and the apparent evidence of the giants is quickly whisked away. . .
The Bible speaks of these mistranslated “giants” as historical though, and it is supported with many other cultures ancient texts, so it seems pretty likely that they were real. . .but what where they if not particularly tall? Perhaps the DNA of a philistine could shed some light on things.
To be continued. . . in part 5.
Leave a Reply