talk:nephilim - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:NephilimFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bible (Rated C-class)This article is within the scope of WikiProjectBible, a collaborative effort to improve thecoverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you wouldlike to participate, please visit the project page,where you can join the discussion and see a listof open tasks.

C This article has been rated as C-Class on theproject's quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale.

WikiProject AncientNear East

This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ancient Near East, acollaborative effort to improve the coverageof Ancient Near East related articles onWikipedia. If you would like to participate,please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see a list of opentasks.

??? This article has not yet received a rating onthe project's quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating onthe project's importance scale.

WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class)This article is within the scope of WikiProjectJudaism, a collaborative effort to improve thecoverage of Judaism-related articles onWikipedia. If you would like to participate,please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see a list of opentasks.

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. 20071.

C This article has been rated as C-Class on theproject's quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating onthe project's importance scale.

WikiProject ChristianityThis article is within the scope of WikiProjectChristianity, a collaborative effort to improvethe coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If youwould like to participate, please visit the projectpage, where you can join the discussion andsee a list of open tasks.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale.

This is not a forum for general discussionabout uncited theories on the possibleorigins of the Nephilim. Any such commentsmay be removed or refactored. Please limitdiscussion to improvement of this article. Youmay wish to ask factual questions about uncitedtheories on the possible origins of the Nephilimat the Reference desk, discuss relevantWikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask forhelp at the Help desk.

Contents1 Nephilim Descended from Elohim2 Singular3 Popular culture section4 Recent edits linking Nephilim toUFO phenomena5 Has anyone else ever noticed this?6 Nephilims in Sumerian creationmyth

6.1 Why I keep removing the


2 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

'Nephilims in Sumerian creationmyth' section6.2 Why I have putting back the'Nephilims in Sumerian creationmyth' section

7 I'm more confused now than ever8 Unsourced comments about theEthiopian Church9 Hebrew text of Ezekiel 32:2710 Source for "ambiguity"? thatnephilim can apply to sons of God11 Eliyahu ben David12 References to Sethites in Eth.canonical Bible13 There must be a better font14 Albanian language claim15 Despite Evolution16 Niflheim Tag Request17 Sources of Scriptural Quotation18 More video games/comics blahblah19 Time to seriously considermentioning neanderthals20 Thanks for improving the lead21 Sirens = Mothers of Nephilim22 Fossils of Giants

22.1 aggeloi23 Offspring of Seth.24 POV Intro25 Mention crazy theories?

Nephilim Descended from ElohimThis is not an advertisement from a psychic tarot card reading snake oilvendor, this is an Elohim head sitting on the moon, taken from an Apollo17 mission video. In the public domain. And that is relevant to thediscussion as the Nephilim were descended from the Elohim. Deletingthe data will not make it go away. I am sorry you do not like the data, butthat won't make it go away either. And as science must contend with thedata, you do not serve science by deleting the data from Wikipedia. Youmerely 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 17website. Also the other related data which I posted, was not speculationeither but actual scientific data. Censoring scientific data is not part of theWikipedia mindset. I will not bother to repost it, but people may view it inthe history if they so wish.Preceding unsigned comment added by RickS33555 (talk contribs)

It's just a rock on the moon. And please sign your posts with fourtildes (~~~~). --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 youropinion and I will fight for you to have your opinion, and I will fight forothers to have theirs as well. Censoring the data is not the same asvoicing 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 ofthe Anunaki, (see history) and if that is just a natural rock formation, thenso is Mount Rushmore. Further and pursuant to all that, show me thetablets.

Rick S33555 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a picture of a rock on the moon from a screenshot of a clipfrom youtube, which is a blacklisted site on wikipedia because itregularly breaks copyright laws. It is not a WP:Reliable Source. Yes,Mount Rushmore is a natural rock formation, the faces carved into itare not. Show you the tablets? --Ghostexorcist 10:32, 10 October2007 (UTC)

Well I personally do not own a satellite, and so as such, cannot show youa satellite image from space, but I can show you coordinates, so that youcan go and use google earth, and see this for yourself. 15,10,21,56 Sand 75,14,32,12 W at an eye elevation of 14 miles.

That is an Anunnaki, and part of the same discussion, which includes theorigin of the Nephilim.

I posted an image, from an Apollo 17 video, I did not post a link toyoutube. The image is in the public domain as all NASA footage is in thepublic 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 isNASA footage.

And my reference to show me the tablets is a common expressionbecause the belief in the 10 commandments is well known, but they donot physically exist. No hard data only hearsay evidence. So it is unfair,to censor actual physical evidence when much of the subject matter inthis topic is hearsay evidence. It seems to me that you are taking abiased opinion based on preconceived notions and not allowing others tomake up their own minds what the data means. The head there on themoon is a giant head, and as such is one of a few examples of giantheads that may be shown here. So I submit that you should really allowthe facts to speak for themselves and not allow your personal opinions tointerfere with the honest pursuit of the facts.

As for no published data on this subject you can read Zechariah Sitchinand countless other well documented texts by PhD's in many scientificfields of endeavor. Rick S33555 11:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I say again, it's a screenshot from youtube. It's not reliable. How cananyone read about the "published data" if you don't offer citations?--Ghostexorcist 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for being difficult, but I find it very annoying when the scientificfacts are treated with such disrespect. People went to the moon and theybrought back evidence such as this and for you to dismiss it as nonsenseflies 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 whichdepicts the head. http://s2.supload.com/free/VideoandlocationofElohimHead-10-10-2007.jpg/view/ Here is a linkto the video. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1652245.rm Here isthe page the video is on so you can do your own further research of youwish... 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 ZechariaSitchin is not a scholar?

"Zecharia Sitchin was born in Russia and raised in Palestine, where heacquired 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 andarcheology of the Near East. He is one of the few scholars who is able toread and understand Sumerian. Sitchin attended and graduated from theUniversity of London, majoring in economic history. A leading journalistand editor in Israel for many years, he now lives and writes in NewYork.""

And are you suggesting also that Von Daniken is a crackpot? Why?Because he dares to mention relics that he finds on his journeys aroundthe world, having researched in the field, first hand for over 30 years.Spoken to countless people in locales and studied their traditionallegends and mythology. He has done more field work that any Harvardarchaeologist. Just because his opinions do not match yours is no reasonto vilify him or his work.

Do you have some explanation for that 4 mile long rock art sculpture ofan Anunnaki at those coordinates in google earth I gave you or for theElohim head found by Apollo 17? So why then do you revile these menwho _do have an explanation? I will tell you why, because you are afraidof that which confronts you and so you wish to minimize it by relegating itto the fringe and offering guilt by association to somehow discredit theideas of men who spent their entire professional careers studying thesesubjects. Read em and weep. The locations are there I have providedthem at the NASA website and you have censored data and have shownyourself to be not a fair judge in this matter. Unqualified to delete myposts.


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 supportyour claims. --Ghostexorcist 12:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I have shown you an Elohim head on the moon. From Apollo 17footage, and you might ask then well where is his birth certificate and ofcourse I cannot provide that and you could then say well where is hispassport? And I could not provide that either. If you ask for his citizenshipfrom some alien planet I am afraid that he is without his wallet, so thenwhat sort of citation could I provide that would satisfy you? AlthoughZecharia 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 saysexpect to find an Elohim head on the moon. Although there are plenty ofreferences to the moon and even in Indian mythology with theRamayana, where a battle is fought on the moon. So then you dismissthe rock art of the Anunnaki. And you say it is a rock. Yes, a rock with aclear depiction of a person, who with his right hand is holding up twofingers and with his left hand has his index finger as a missile. And sothen to explain that all to you, so that you can see how that fits in withother archaeology would take some time if you are a nay sayer, as naysayers just deny the evidence. So extraordinary claims demandextraordinary evidence and these two things I have already shown youare quite extraordinary. Above and beyond extraordinary. And so thengiving you more coordinates in google earth to yet more Anunnaki I cando. Here beside that one, is the smoking gun. (You have no idea whatyou are dealing with here) And keep in mind, you are almost asking forproof 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 rotateclockwise 10 degrees to the east for proper orientation.

And so then I can show you how these water bringer Gods, theAnunnaki, who fired the missiles, tie in with the Elohim, where oneimpacted, and where one is still sitting on the moon, which did notdetonate, and how this all fits into their battle with the Elohim, and how ashas been claimed by many, that there was a flood of sorts which resultedin the demise of the Nephilim their creation. But if you delete everything,including references to where that other missile is, and the relics whichdepict this story in Egyptian archaeology and Sumerian studies, well thenhow can I show the information so that people will be able to understandthe connections between the Elohim, the Anunnaki, and the Nephilim?


"Well I have shown you an Elohim head on the moon. From Apollo17 footage..." You have shown me a rock on the moon from ascreenshot from a blacklisted website.

"Although there are plenty of references to the moon and even inIndian mythology with the Ramayana, where a battle is fought on themoon." I am well aware of the events of the Ramayana because Ihave 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 theoverall problem I have with your "original research" is your claimabout gods firing missiles at one another. I have to request you stopposting here like wikipedia is a forum. If you want to make valuableedits to the main article with verifiable sources, please feel free todo so at any time. --Ghostexorcist 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This NASA website is not a blacklisted website. Here is a link to thevideo. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1652245.rm Here is ascreenshot. http://s2.supload.com/free/VideoandlocationofElohimHead-10-10-2007.jpg/view/

You are not being reasonable. I am just trying to show you evidence ofthe Nephilim, which I'll admit, some believe are mythical creatures, whowere created by God, and so you ask for evidence that God did it, from awhat a scientific journal? Well the good lord works in mysterious waysand he has made some rock art for you that tells the story and that is hiscitation. Here is another one, fair use policy I won't make you look up thecoordinates, 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 fired at the moon because the Elohimwere mining into the moon, and were destroying the gene pool withgenetic engineering (Biblical reference Genesis Elohim and thedaughters of men etc) one went off and created Aitken Basin andpunctured the moon causing water to outgass from the moon and it fellon the earth in vast quantities. The Nephilim which were on the earth,were forced to the equator where competition for food made them extinctalong with the megafauna. If you examine these artifacts, the NarmerPalette (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 thosetwo missiles. The Water Bringer God symbolism is in many relics fromthe Middle East and Peru such as the (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/La_Venta_Stele_19.jpg)dead link] La VentaStele etc.

I'll admit that I am not expert on Wikipedia style and that is why when Idid post to the page I just forwarded the information here for discussionon 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 Wikipediafashion, then that would be nice because it is relevant data. And also,Zecharia Sitchin and Von Daniken should not be merely placed in thepopular culture heading but rather in a separate heading TheExtraterrestrial Hypothesis. I have seen this site used in Wikipedia but Ipost it here simply because I can't provide every reference for ZechariaSitchins work etc. Perhaps someone else can. http://www.crystalinks.com/godswaterbuckets.html


Basically, you have demonstrated to me that you have no textualcitations to support your original research. You can show me all ofthe moon rock formation photos and stelae you want, but it stilldoesn'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 notis irrelevant. What matters is whether there are reliable sourceswhich specifically argue that it is, and whether inclusion of thatinformation on this page would raise concerns about the ideareceiving undue weight. So far as I have seen, there has yet tobe presented any evidence that any reliable source has madethe claim regarding the rock that you make, or any of the otherclaims you put forward as well. On that basis, the contentcannot be responsibly added to wikipedia. If and when a reliablesource does make such a contention, then there would be noobjection to including the information somewhere in wikipedia,maybe here, maybe elsewhere. However, until and unless areliable source, as defined by the WP:RS page makes thatcontention, and provided the content does not place unduerelative weight on the theory as per WP:Undue weight, wecannot by policy include such content in any article. John Carter15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just can't even imagine a source that could make that claim besides methe pope and God, and so I guess I will bow to your wishes unless youmight somehow suggest what a reliable source might look like on theearth that could identify that as an Elohim? You and I both know thejournal Nature is not going to publish any article of that nature and also Icannot even post image snapshots from google earth, so I guess at theend of the day Wikipedia is not flexible enough to deal with the real worldand 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 itdoesn't say what it is, and so it requires a great deal of understanding toknow what it is. Thats Hecate, thats the underworld and thats an Elohimhead with bat wings to signify Catholicism. And I can pass thatinformation on, but its not satisfactory for Wikipedia's guidelinesregarding reference to that specific head in question and as such, I amsure you understand that I would be unable to prove that it is, and soonce again I have to just leave it to others to write scholarly texts andthen perhaps it can be used. Rick S33555 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is some kind of trolling, scifi, role-playing, whatever other kind ofspam[1] (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.astro/2007-10/msg00171.html). Just auto-revert it. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 18:37, 16December 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-hourflight!PiCo (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

SingularWhat is/would be the singular form in Hebrew? I assume Nephilim is aplural, like Elohim (I need this information for a work of fiction). Couldsomeone provide the Latin (i.e. regular), Greek and, ideally, Hebrewscript versions?

Thank youDavid Latapie ( | @) www (http://blog.empyree.org/en) 18:19, 12 October2007 (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 theniqqud 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 defines the word simply as "Giant." Thus, anyespecially tall, powerful, large, or mighty man would be described inancient times as Nephilim. Nephilim may simply mean "giant," champion,or strong man. 4. The term might not refer to any specific race or groupof people but is a label similar to "hero," a legendary figure, or "greatman." Is that (plural form to mean one individual) just an instance ofbarbarism, or does the Bible use it in singular likeElohim?--87.162.33.234 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture sectionI've removed most of this. Some was blatant self-promotion, some waspure trivia. I'm not convinced that any of it that is left is 'culturallysignificant'. WP:POPCULTURE says "should contain verifiable facts ofgenuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although someinformation can be verified from primary sources, this does notdemonstrate whether such information has been discussed inindependent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinelysignificant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attributethat judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importanceof a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." So, that still needs tobe 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 needsto be re-written. It needs to begin with describing the oldest literaturein which the term is used (Genesis, Jubilees, Enoch), the dates ofthese (all Second Temple), and the meaning of the word. The finalarticle 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 othereditors on this little project you just announced? Or is it one ofthose "exclusive" projects? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:27, 10November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get mad Til - it was simply that Doug started thethread and I was replying. I have the greatest respect foryour knowledge of Jubilees/Enoch, and anything you haveto say is always of value. PiCo (talk) 13:52, 10 November2008 (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 whatothers have put out here as potential references to this topic in popculture! I find it irritating, egotistical and ridiculous that you took it uponyourself to decided which references were worthy or posting and whichwere not. It is actually IMPORTANT to me and my project to know thatthere are comic books, books, tv shows and movies being made on thetopic and for you to have just decided that they were self promoting andtherefore not worthy is (something for the reader to decide based on theirreason for looking it up!) nuts. Seriously, get a grip and PLEASE returnthe info to the page (you can put your comments on the "worthiness" oneach 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 asYOU know them and would prefer the article to be overly inclusive ratherthan exclusive. Do you have any idea how much time doing research youhave created for me??? UURRGGHHHH!!!!!! Preceding unsignedcomment 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 projecthas nothing to do with whether it should be in a Wikipedia article.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia basically reporting on what reliable andverifiable sources have to say about a subject. This does not meanthat pop culture stuff shouldn't be in an article, but your needs arenot a reason to include it. dougweller (talk) 20:28, 28 November2008 (UTC)

Recent edits linking Nephilim to UFOphenomena


12 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

I've reverted this. The bit about 'growing number' had no source. SuperiorBooks 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 bethe 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 ofgod did it with the daughters of man, and the nephilim were on the earthin those days" technically there's no causative relationship betweenthose two. It might even just be saying "back in the time of heroes, thesons of god got it on with the daughters of man" . are there any, like,sources from biblical scholars regarding this? Not that it would solveanything, it'd actually raise even more questions if they were unrelated...Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:57, 4 November2009 (UTC)

Nephilims in Sumerian creation mythThis should only be in the article if it can be based on reliable, academicsources. I was about to revert it myself, and have removed it fromanother [[Watcher {Angel}]]. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009(UTC)

The IP editor that added them recently said they were fromSumerian translations, but none of the sites he provided gave thosetranslations. If he can provide those translations that actually saywhat he's claiming, I'll shut up. As it is, he has provided theewebsites as references in the article, all three use Zecharia Sitchinas acceptable sources (two mention him by name). A fourth sourcethat he provided in an edit summary, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/, is alegit site, but he does not bring up the text that he is refering to, andit 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 creationmyth' 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 useideas ultimately derived from Zecharia Sitchin. They do not actuallypresent the translated Sumerian texts that would support their claims.The first site is on blogspot, which is not an acceptable source forwikipedia because anyone can start a blogspot page with anything onthere (and it is not under any sort of review like wikipedia is). The secondpage 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, butthe actual texts to support the claims I keep removing are neverpresented. It is not my job to look for the evidence of those claims, it isthe job of the person making the claim to show his evidence. SO far, hehas only been showing other websites that he agrees with that do notshow their evidence either. If I said that novel Moby Dick has thecharacter Darth Vader in it, it would be my job to show where in MobyDick that Darth Vader is mentioned, and simply linking to other sites thatsay "Darth Vader is in Moby Dick" or "George Lucas was influenced byHermann Melville" would not work because they are not actually showingwhere Darth Vader is in Moby Dick. If this happened, it would only besane to assume that Darth Vader is NOT mentioned in Moby Dick.Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Ian. I was in the process of reverting thepage, but you beat me to it. The edit summary I left was thus: "Thepoint is that this is Wikipedia and everything needs a source.Personal knowledge of the pervaliance of various gods inSummerian texts is not the same as a scholarly source attesting tothat 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 aproblem with, its that they actually are not being brought up intheir original form but in fantasy websites. If an example of theword Nephalim being used in Sumerian texts was found, oreven a common intermarraiges of humans and supernaturalbeings leading to a flood could be found in the actualtranslations of the texts (instead of websites claiming to haveread them), I would be fine 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 nowover 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 hopefullysomeone will do something. If I wasn't involved I wouldhave protected the page. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 20November 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. I expect theIP to enter into dialogue here over the insertion of thesection. For that reason I have not blocked the IP yet.Should no discussion take place, or the editingcontinues after the block expires, then a block will beenacted on the IP. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 20 November2009 (UTC)

Why I have putting back the 'Nephilims in Sumeriancreation myth' sectionIt's me, the "unsourced-one"..:) Guys I appreciate your efforts to keepWikipedia clean and trustworthy, I also think it is very important. Butlooking 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'tknow that, this article is a part of "WikiProject Judaism", what is "acollaborative effort to "improve" the coverage of Judaism-related articleson Wikipedia", and I didn't know that hebrews dont really like toremember the origins of their "own" stories, I'd be also much moreunderstanding and helpful with sources and in everything you want fromme. Since I'm just as much the same editor of Wiki as You are, personalopinions doesn't really matter, there's not any "leading-opinion" in a topicwhich nowone knows about wheter it is about a real thing or the whiolething is just a fairy tale. In connection with an article like that, asking meto "prove" anything, and "show sources" about, I think is a little harshfrom 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 "notbased on facts". Anyway, the story in the Bible is based on facts? Canyou prove it? No, you cannot. It is just an idea about them, if they evenexisted. 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 guywrote two hundred books about Niburu and other things (I dont reallybelieve in), but the FACTS he built his work on are FACTS. Of course hecoloured them, made them ready to be sold for the brainless, but theAnuna gods, Enki, Enlil, the story of creation by them is existed and caneasily be found in ANY sumerian source. Ian deleted my posts andproving that he thinks ALL the words came from me are Sitchin's, anddeleted without thinking through, what parts of it is exactly wrong ormisinterpreted, and what parts are 100% facts. If Ian liked this article andwanted to know the truth, he should be happy about getting a clue, whereto search more. But he didn't do, he just deleted the whole thing, whichSEEM to smell like Sitchin. To clear things up: Actually, very hard to finda text which DOESNT mention Anuna gods. Creation in the sumerianmyths is something that anyone can read who has eyes, in manysources. If Ian would be a fair editor, even if he thought that all my wordscame from Sitchin, he could have deleted my insertions, adding a shortsentence at the bottom of the page, that: "There are sumerian texts thatare not just 2 vague sentences that we've been talking about here forpages, that - according some ezoteric/crazy/etc. guys - can explain thewhole overcomlicated thing here.", or sg like that, not so ironic...:) But hejust 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 whatis wrong. But if he never searches, it is not easy to say what is wrong Ithink. Editors dont have just 2 options, "leave it or delete". An editor hasthe responsibility of correcting, what is wrong, and leaving what is right. Idont think my additions didnt contain ANY right, but Ian' s deletion of thewhole thing tell everybody its wrong completely, which I didnt liked ,andput my article back as many times as he deleted it in his blind anger. imnot a "pirate" on Wikipedia, I just would like everybody to know about another 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 resemblingthe stories of the Nephilim. You have yet to show us anything. Youhave shown that you do know where to look for translations ofSumerian texts, so you have access to those texts, but you still donot show evidence for your statements. This is not about whether ornot the Bible is "true." The issue is did the Sumerians have similarlegends, 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 knowthat there the issue is whether or not there are legends about theAnnunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchers and theNephalim. 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 thoseclaims, it is your job to look for reliable sources.Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dickarticle to the effect that Darth Vader is present in the book MobyDick? Would it be responsible for me to do so using websites thatused material rejected by scholars, especially a personal websiteand a site advertising a book? Would it be responsible for me to tellothers to go look in Moby Dick for Darth Vader instead of giving themthe citation myself? No, none of those things would be responsible.Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"...we all know that there the issue is whether or not there are legendsabout the Annunaki that are similar to the legends about the Watchersand 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 tothe 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 worthwriting at least a single sentence about this? What is your point with thisarticle? 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 singlesentence 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 thesame. That's what I dont like and feel a little arrogant that you deletesomething or not, but you never correct nothing? You were able to checkmy refs, in the same time you could also correct it, or write that singlesentence, that would note the possibility of what we are talking about. Butyou just deleted the whole new content. If all the editors do like this, ofcourse, a lot of unreliable information get blocked, but how manyinteresting, fresh, less dull (I mean, not copy-pasted from anyencyclopedia) 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 unreliablerefs, but on the other hand many new ideas - maybe very substantial -would be thrown out the window? Thats what I dont like the method youfollow during editing. If you dont feel responsible for this, I think you arenot the perfect one to be an editor here or anywhere. Anybody coulddelete things that not in the correct format without thinking it through, butthat's far from the maximum, you could give. Just a few can feel Wikitheir own, and only the ones who spare no effort, can making Wikicontains more colorful.

"...Show us where in any Sumerian texts there is anything resembling thestories of the Nephilim...Would it be responsible for me to put somethingin the Moby Dick article to the effect that Darth Vader is present in thebook 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 isanywhere in the texts. Anunna gods are just like this, the are everywherein sumerian texts, you dont have to search for them. Just the onescannot see them without eyes. the resemblance I think is relative to thepoint of view, but in the case of Anunnaki and Nephilims it is more thanobvious. Just like the Nagas in the Thai, Sri lankan, or Indian Nagas inRamayana. I dont think I am the one who is aware of the resemblance ofthese to the Nephilims, but I cannott see any notes in connection withthem. But you are all happy with the article the way it is now, because "Itis not my job to search for clues for your claims". This soundsdisappointingly snobbish and arrogant, from a scientific point of view,from one of the editors of Wiki, after writing "we all know that there theissue is whether or not there are legends about the Annunaki that aresimilar to the legends about the Watchers and the Nephalim". I hope yourpoint of view will change with time and your job can be really fruitful, andwill expand from "deleting only" into "eternal and relentless searching andpublishing for the any possible truth".

"Would it be responsible for me to do so using websites that usedmaterial rejected by scholars, especially a personal website and a siteadvertising 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 youself-confident and infromed about that enough, to decide what is the realthing behind rejection? And You can decide it, but me, I cannot? CanWikipedia readers decide, what you think? The principle that you followduring editing is like that, in my interpretation: I decide for all the Wikireaders, what is ok and what is not. What I dont find ok, I dont letthrough, so it doesnt exist for them.

I think even the wildest ideas should be let through, but signalling that thepossibility of being true is slight, if I think so.

One can never think, what the future brings, how science turnupside-down from one day to an other, and who will seem the silly one inhundred years, just like the way now we think of the ones who put Galileiaside and made him "rejected by scholars" of his time...To list allpossibilities, even if some of them are just wild ideas, I dont think wouldmislead anybody, if we affix that : "according our present knowledge itcannot be proven".

"Would it be responsible for me to put something in the Moby Dick articleto 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 aboutHerman Melville, about that he wrote a book about Moby Dick, and DarthVader is a character in it. Your reaction to my addition is similar to theone's who would delete the whole addition about the book Moby Dick,because the author mentioned Darth Veder in connection with it. Wiki justwouldn't tell anything about Moby Dick, because of that error, andbecause you are lazy to write an other, correct article, without the refabout Dart Vader. Thats the case if you are aware of the fact the additionhas a "core of truth" in it, but is wrong with some details. Is this good forWiki readers? Don't you think, the existence of the Moby Dick isimportant 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 actualsentence which I promise I'll look for, and insert as soon as I find in thetext. 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 dontwant to do it, at least let others do.

What makes it difficult, I dont really know, what to prove. If I findsentences about the Anunnaki, whats next? We get to know that they arelike this and like that, but we dont know nothing about Nephilims, how onEarth we could characteristics of Anunnaki compared to the big nothingabout Nephilims?

Thats why I think, Anunnaki should be the base of the whole Nephilimarticle, sumerian sources are much older and give much moreinformation about Anunnaki, what they did, why they did, what was theirpersonalities like. I think I could cite arond 10.000 sencences about theiractivities, but how we'll see any similarity to something that only contains2 sentences (the version in the Bible)?

But I will look for some sentences, because you told me, and maybe I willbe forced to correct my statements, and i will mea culpa than...But hardto 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 isdeveloped together, putting matching pieces of knowledge together in aglobal 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 (andAnunaki just in case), and nothing at all showed up. And withoutanything there, I don't see it very likely you are going to find anyreliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the ref I gave, either search for 'Anuna' / Anuna gods or use this directlink 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, 21November 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 doyou 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 journalsabout Jewish and Middle East studies, Anthropology, Religion,Archeology, and so on. If a scholar has written about the Nephilimbeing derived from the Annunaki, it would be there. As for the linkyou provided, the issue is not whether or not the Sumeriansworshipped the Anuna gods/Annunaki (that is accepted), the issue iswhether or not the stories about the Anuna are the basis for the storyabout the Nephilim in Genesis (which the link does not show). Theflood story in Genesis is certainly derived from a Sumerian sourcethrough Babylon, but the intent is different: in the Sumerian storiesthe gods are tired of the noise made by the overpopulation, while inthe Nephilim narrative the evil of the Nephilim causes the flood. Ihave found this essay (http://rshendel.googlepages.com/HendelDemigods.pdf), which points out that the story of evilhalf-human giants appears to be an isolate in West Semitic cultures,which means that they likely didn't get it from Sumeria throughBabylon (or else it would have been found among the Canaanites aswell). Sitchin did make up a lot of crap, and the connection betweenthe Annunaki and the Nephilim appears to be one more thing hemade up. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread is making me have horrible flashbacks of thisprevious discussion. Many claims are made, but are neversupported with reliable material. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:33, 21November 2009 (UTC)

Zoltan, I've removed your recent edit. Please read WP:OR-- Wikipedia is not a place for original research - this appliesto both articles and talk pages. The bottom line is withoutreliable sources [WP:RS]] which in this case would beacademic sources this has no place on Wikipedia.Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to confirm my arguments, how should I do this than? All thatyou can read before my post, are opinions as well. I stated nowhere thelast sentences are facts. The bottom line of my comment was myopinion, which I don't think is forbidden to express on a talk page, if it is, Icannot see the reason. I'm new to Wikipedia, could you help me out, Iinserted the source, is it ok like this? I can insert other sources if youwant. (But anyway I still cannot see, why a talk page - which is fordiscussing 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" toperform original thoughts without sorces, seeing connection betweenthings, 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! :) Ourargument is about wether all these divine "species" the same or not. Iwas 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 away of expressing an opinion, if we actually don't mention the otherpossibilities, suggesting that, there doesn't even exist any? Wouldn't theydeserve the less a link in the Related topics?

I just read Wiki, and now I got to know that Book of Enoch is the first andperfect example under the article pseudepigraph...and it has ahighlighted place in this article as a reliable source. Zoltan_Bereczki(talk) 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nephilim article, following scholarly consensus, assumes theNephilim were mythical beings and not historical ones. Genesis 6 isthe first mention of them, and the Book of Enoch is the majordevelopment of the mythology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 27November 2009 (UTC)

You're saying, if there is a "scholarly consensus" in a field of science, it isvalid ethernally? Poor Giordano Bruno was told the same, before beingsent to the stake, by your intellectual ancestors. "Sorry Giordano,scholarly consensus says the heliocentric view is nothing else than acrazy idea...It should burn together with you! Step ahead!" You say,Nephilims "were" mythical beings and not historical. Ah, thats where ourlittle argument is heading for... If something "'was", it cannot be mythical Ithink. But I start to see your point. You think mythology is something thatfor 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 tryto keep this article the way you like it? If we are arguing about that, I justwould like to know... We all know that, science has just begun to explorethe Middle-Eastern and Asian sources in the last fifty years. Sumeriansources were impossible to translate until the recent past. According tobiblical sources only, I would agree with you. But after reading theapparently 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 actuallyEuropean, 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, wecouldnt even start a fire, without the approval of a "scolarly consensus".There might have been a scholar consensus, but times change, newfacts appear, assumptions change. Seemengly, one thing doesn'tchange, your opinion, which you think is established by the "scolars",who think Book of Enoch an established source (of mythology). I canaccept that, if you want to be blindfolded, and want to think myth is amyth, you are free to do so. You can think I'm just a crazy guy who spoilsyour day with his fantasies. But I'm not still here because of that. I'm herebecause I know stories about nephilims, other ones about Nagas, andabout Anunnaki. If I read the same story in three culture's myths so farfrom 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 tounderstand this, and you wouldn't think that, you know the right thingabout all this, in the right and unquestionable way. Because the problemwith 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 becomea 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 twoapples side by side, do we need a scholarly consensus to determinethem both as apples, or we can use our eyes to determine that? What Iasked, and wanted to put into the article, was not that, these apples AREthe same, but just putting them side by side in this article, and everyonecan decide - if he wants - whether they are the same or not. Try toanswer to this, in your own human voice please, I haven't really liked totalk to this dry and lexical Ian "robot" thompson, I would like a humanbeing to talk with, thanks. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 12:54, 27 November2009 (UTC)

I urge the above editor to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY andensure that his future comments adhere to it. And the only one I seedoing any "arguing" is the IP editor. Wikipedia is not a compendiumof information, but rather an encyclopedia. As such, it is nlike allencyclopedias intended to reflect the current opinion of the scholarlycommunity. The fact that you have drawn a conclusion that thestories are similar is not sufficient for the article to be changed to


23 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

reflect your own opinion, however well founded you may think it. If itwere, then virtually edvery article dealing with JFK or anyone elseclosely associated with any fringe theories wouild be awash inspeculation about aliens, conspiracy theories, and lord knows whatall else. If you can find an academic journal or other source as perWP:RS which makes the association explicitly and provides itsreasons, fine, that is admissable. By the same token, if it is an ideawhich no respectable scholar has yet put forward, then there is avery real question as to why not. This is the reason we have aspecific guideline dealing with material which has not receivedscholarly consensus, WP:FRINGE, which I suggest you read. But, atthis point, that guideline doesn't really apply, because you have yetto point toward any reliable source as per WP:RS which says whatyou say. I would therefore also suggest you read WP:NOT andWP:OR. We do not pubnlish original research, which, by yourstatement, is what your own individual conclusion regarding therelationship of these subjects is. This is not saying I am completelyunsympathetic with you. If you look at Talk:Atlantis, you will see astatement from me regarding what I think is the likely origin of thatmyth. You will also note however that I tacitly acknowledge that forthat idea to be put in the article it would need reliable sources. For allI know, there may be some very good reasons why the scholarlycommunity has not made that association. So far as I can tell, thesame can be said about your conclusion. Because we don't want tobe found to put forward conclusions which are not reliable orcredited by any of the recognized experts or authorities in any field,we demand reliable sourcing, and, sadly, neither you nor I arereliable sources.If you can find sourcing, which is what we want for anything added toany article, good, that is what we want. If you can't, then there is areal reasonable question why no one has published such aconclusion. There are other sites which do permit additions based onpersonal 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 everI've read what Wikipedia has for the definition for Nephilim. However,after reading this material I'm more confused now than ever. I'm an avidreader of the bible daily needing some clarity on this race of people. I'veconcluded that this race of people or group was as Adam (tall) but worldrenowned 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 arementioned after the flood so what gives and where did they originate? Imay have to wait until I'm face to face with the Son of God, Jesus toknow. Too many ifs in this content. [email protected]````Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.97.18 (talk) 15:27, 26 January2010 (UTC)

Unsourced comments about the EthiopianChurchIs there an Ethiopian Orthodox version of 1 Enoch completely differentfrom the 1 Enoch known as "Ethiopic Enoch"? Because if not, we needsome sourced evidence to show that the Ethiopian Church takes anon-canonical (in Ethiopia) 5th Century pseudepigraphonConflict_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 (ofsaid church) which confirms that the church believes thecanonical (for them) Enoch, which makes the statements in thearticle very unlikely In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)In ictu, The official Ethiopian Orthodox canonical Enoch issimilar to the Greek, but a crucial difference is that it (likeJubilees) describes the Nephilim as hybrid descendants ofCainites and Sethites, not "Angels". I've seen you on theAmharic wikipedia (where I edit as User:Codex Sinaiticus) so Iwill link the official 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 Amharicis so far below-basic that would take me all day to decipherthat. So can I understand you to be saying that e.g. Knibb's1978 translation here is incorrect:

10 Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began toapproach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery,incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. 11 And the womenconceiving 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, andprobably wouldn't have noticed a footnote to that effect. If Knibb and OTPare wrong then disappointing that there is no source in English for a fairlywidely believed error. (not that most errors aren't widely believed) In ictuoculi (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche -- In the 1882 Malan, Book ofAdam 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 hiswork on Conflict... But that's Melkite, is there a reference source to showthat the Ethiopian Church does not accept the teaching of one of itscanonical books? I cannot find anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 5 July2010 (UTC)

I do not follow what you are talking about. The canonical OrientalOrthodox text as I have linked is the official Bible, and the Book ofEnoch (Henok) as well as Jubilees (Kufale) there statesunequivocally that the Nephilim are hybrid descendants of Sethitesand Cainites. This is what the O.O. Church says too, so there is nodisagreement with the canon there. The disagreement seems tocome from the Greek version, which calls them "Angels". TilEulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Til, forgive me if I'm being dense, these are myquestions:

1 in Knibb 6:8 (http://exodus2006.com/3rebels.htm)] the Ethiopic textis the same as the Greek in saying "Angels", or has this htm beenadulterated and that is not what Knibb says? If this htm has editedKnibb what does Knibb say in 6:8? Or is Knibb wrong??2 Where is there a source by the Ethiopian Church which says thatthe Gen 6 "sons of god" were sons of Seth?3 Where is there a source that says that the Ethiopian Church givesany credence to the 5thC "Conflict of A w S"?

I'm asking this not because I don't want what you're sayingto be true, I'd love it to be, but where are the refs so theycan go into the article? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 6July 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 Charlestranslation, which was mostly based on the Greek andSyriac versions. It categorically is NOT a translation ofthe canonical Ethiopic Orthodox version!2) The canonical Orthodox Books of Henok (Mets'hafeHenok) and Jubilees (Mets'hafe Kufale) are the primarycanonical sources stating the doctrine that the "sons ofgod" were "sons of Seth". I'll have to look around for asecondary source, but no doubt one can be foundstating that the Ethiopian Church teaches this.3) The "Conflict of Adam and Eve" isn't on any list ofbooks withj official canonical status, but the literature iscertainly known to the Church as literature (presumablyas any other in the category of Ge'ez literature). TilEulenspiegel (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a secondary source for question #2 -- hereis an official EOTC webpage that specificallyaddresses the question of why the offspring ofSeth from Enoch are called "sons of god" inGenesis, and whether they are really "Angels" ascertain other churches teach (note it concludesthat the idea these "watchers" were "Angels" andnot humans from Seth, is anther false teachingunsupported by Scripture)http://www.mahiberekidusan.org/Default.aspx?tabid=98&ctl=Details&mid=371&ItemID=75 Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:57, 6 July2010 (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 "Conflict.."?

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1,2 I don't know of any standard English translation of thecanonical Amharic text of Henok.3 - You may be asking me to delve into OR, and I'm limited towhat I can say. The reason is that the EOTC has never evenpublished the entirety of its "broad canon" in any language, butit is said to include several books attributed to St. Clement. Youcan 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 Conflict withregard to the identity of the Watchers being Sethites and notreally "angels". The interesting thing about the Ktab al Magall, isthat it purports to be the teachings of St. Peter to St. Clement; inthe book, St. Peter says he got part of it directly from Jesus, butmost of it he says he got from a genealogical scroll that hadbeen allegedly given Jesus as an infant by one of the Magi, andpreserved by the early church. It's highly likely that somethingsimilar is in the "broad canon" EOTC writings of Clement, butnothing has been published. Suffice it for our article to say thatthe current Church definitely takes the same view of the "Angelsmating with humans" thing being a western superstition, as theAmharic link I gave yesterday indicates. Til Eulenspiegel (talk)13:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)1,2 - Okay. Perhaps I first need to understand which is thecanonical one among mss A-Q Book_of_Enoch#Ethiopic? Re.OR, there is a way round the OR, issue; if the key verse of thecanonical text of 1 Enoch is directly copied into a footnote, andthe Ethiopian printer/date noted, then that cannot be OR; and ifan English translation of that line goes into the main text that'scompletely legitimate, that's not OR, just a translation. Peopledo that with German and Latin all the time, as long as theoriginal German or Latin is in the ref footnote.3, - Okay, forget about the article, just for my own interest canyou name the EO bishop who cites from "Conflict" against theangels mating with humans view.

Btw - Thanks - this is interesting In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010(UTC)

Hebrew text of Ezekiel 32:27This: " As the text stands "And they shall not lie with the fallen mighty ofthe uncircumcised, which are gone down (yaradu ) to the grave withtheir weapons of war:", but this could become the gibborim nepilim of theuncircumcised.K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van derHorst, "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 seenothing on page 619 either suggesting " this could become the gibborimnepilim". So why is this sentence in the article? Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 4July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. This is the state of that paragraph prior to my adding in theref that the Massoretic Text requires a change to read in thismanner:

So does DDD p.619support the comment as it originally was? If not you'll have to ask theperson 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: >is actually there in DDD p619 as "Zimmerli (1969)" whichsupports the use that the original poster made of it, except forDDD says "might be preserved" given Zimmerli is discussing acase made after emendment from nepolim to nephilim. DDDconclude that whether Zimmerli's alterations to the text arecorrect or not that MT nepolim "exploits the etymologicalsignificance 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 aboutZimmerli. 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 basingmy sentence is this:[]something of the older sense of the term might be preserved inEzekiel 32:27, where the warrior nations "fall" (npl) down intoSheol, but are not privileged to lie with the gibborim nepilim, the"fallen warriors" ... Certainly npl is a keyword in Ezekiel 32 andexploits the etymological significance of Nephilim.I take this to mean that the use of npl in Ezekiel, where it


29 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

signifies a descent into the underworld for the slain warriors,casts light on the meaning of the same root in the nephilim ofGenesis - they are the "might men of old," now in Sheol, butliving in the mythic past of the author of Genesis. (It is myunderstanding that the author of Genesis was writing afterEzekiel 32, although not long after - probably no more than acentury - but this, I think, is why the DDD speaks of "the oldersense of the term" - Ezekiel is older than Genesis). So you canuse this explanation to decide whether DDD p.619 supports myedit.As for In ictu oculi's comment that the MT requires a change toread nepilim, I believe he's right. The MT at Ezekiel 32 saysnopilim (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 conflict, I didn't see In ictu oculi'slatest comment. I'm be happy for him to edit the article ashe sees fit. PiCo (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

PiCo :) No problem, as I said I didn't consider it OR, and I didn'tdelete the DDD ref because it's still very relevant. You go ahead andedit.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources need to deal with the entire statement beingcited - it should be easy for someone to check thesource and say 'yes, that's what it says'. If we say'something requires a change', it needs to say that. Iget bothered by statements such as 'I take this tomean' - isn't that OR? It looks as though DDD is beinginterpreted and that's original research. I agree thoughthat misreading is not OR. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 4July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Well in this case DDD is only recycling Zimmerli, so Iwouldn't worry too much. There's plenty of totally unsourced materialin this article, without making a meal of a reference that is less thanperfect. btw PiCo whatever the wording in DDD might suggest, I'mfairly 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 being8thC. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Source for "ambiguity"? that nephilim canapply to sons of God


30 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

Does anyone have a source for the statement that there is ambiguityabout whether nephilim apply to the sons of God or the offspring? In ictuoculi (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Eliyahu ben DavidAre we sure we want to quote him? The man seems to be a completenutter. 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. canonicalBibleIn octu, here's my best attempt at translating literally the canonicalAmharic text I linked above.

Henok 2:1-3:

After mankind abounded, it became thus: And in that season, handsomecomely children were born to them; and the Offspring of Seth, who wereupon the Holy Mount, saw them and loved them. And they told oneanother, "Come,let us choose for us daughters from Qayel's children; letus bear children for us."

Henok 3:8-10:

"And speak the cleanliness of the Earth, that I shall heal the Earth thatthe Offspring of Seth destroyed, that I shall cleanse Earth. All mankindwon'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. ByAzazel's works and teaching all Earth perished; and write upon him thesin of all persons,", He told him.

Henok 4:7-8:

"Go and tell both for him who perished with women, and for the Offspringof 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 sendupon the Offspring of Seth, who were in a Heavenly rank. And I awokeand came toward them; and all had been gathered and sat as they weptcovering their faces in `Ubilsya'il, that is between Sinilir and Libanos. AndI spoke before them all the vision that I saw while sleeping. I began tospeak this word, which is a thing of Truth, and that I might teach to theOffspring of Seth who were upon the Holy Mount, who are diligent fortheir sin. This is the book where the reprimand was written to theOffspring of Seth, diligent for them sin...

Henok 4:29

As the Illustrious Lord has created me also, and given me a reasoningthat I might teach the Offspring of Seth who were on the Holy Mount, Isaw while sleeping the things I speak.

Henok 4:69

"Approach here and hear My Word, and go and tell the Offspring of Sethwho 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 theirkindred, shall be called evil children in this world. And their lodging shallbe in this world. As their fathers had been born from the Offspring of Sethwho descended from the Holy Mount, evil children were born from theOffspring of Seth who are their kindred.

I have only got through chapter 4, and that's all I have time for now, but itseems there are many more such references to the Offspring of Seth inHenok and Jubilees, as well as throughout the Books of Meqabyan (andthere 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. Ihope you can actually use that translation somewhere later.


32 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

That is indeed substantially different from the Ethiopic MSSused by RH Charles etc.

(RH CHARLES) 7:2 And when the angels, (3) the sons ofheaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them,saying to each other,Come, let us select for ourselveswives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.(WEBSITE VERSION) 2:1-3 and the Offspring of Seth, whowere upon the Holy Mount, saw them and loved them. Andthey told one another, "Come,let us choose for usdaughters from Qayel's children; let us bear children forus."

So what of A-Q is the Website pdf based on, and does the pdfdisplay any publication year? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 7 July2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the "letter classification" of theGe'ez text, that the canonical Orthodox Amharic translationwas made from. I do know this is the official EOTCtranslation that was first made during the Haile Selassieyears, when the deuterocanon was first publishedseparately; and was later the same text as that included inthe 81 book Bible published by the EOTC later on (I thinkthat was around 1990 but I'll have to check). Rememberthat Charles, Charlesworth, and apparently also Knibb,stated that they made extensive use of the Syriac andGreek versions in their translations, thus their texts do notseem to follow the Ethiopic as much as they do those othertranslations, in many places. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:46, 7July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Til. I think I've worked out what's happened. The pdfmay well be the 1935 Buxton version (see Bibletranslations (Amharic)), the one that was printed inAmerica in 1936, but withdrawn and reissued in 1962.Of course Charles, Black, E. Isaac (in Charlesworth),Nickelsburg etc. all use Syriac, Greek, etc. tosupplement the later Ge'ez where possible. But I doubtthey'd even look at Buxton's Amharic edition. Thequestion is does the 1962 Tewahedo version followthe 1935 Haile Selassie/Buxton text, or follow theGe'ez texts? And what do modern EO commentarieson 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 fromGe'ez to Amharic commissioned by Haile SelassieI in Ethiopia, and not in the US. Reading that linkcarefully, suggests it was some different versionthat was published in the US. The deuterocanonincluding Henok, Kufale and Meqabyan, however,was first published separately, I think in the 1950s.The "81-book Tewahido Bible" that came out a fewyears ago includes the same text of thedeuterocanon as published previously. I know I'mrepeating myself, but I don't understand whatfurther demonstration of the Ethiopic Orthodoxdoctrine it would possibly take to convince you thatthey don;t subscribe, and won't subscribe, to anynotion of "angels breeding with humans". TilEulenspiegel (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Yes, I'm sure that the "Buxton version" is amisnoma, which is why the section Bibletranslations (Amharic) reads First Haile SelassieBible (1935) not "Buxton version". It's not an issueof convincing me, I believe you, and if I didn't oneof my former tango partners was EO, I could askher. It's an issue for Wikipedia refs of either (a)finding a publication date to support that the pdf onthe link in Bible translations (Amharic) is thecurrent Tewahido version (which it probably is)(b)a ref in any EO publication to use as a ref inNephilim.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010(UTC)

Til, time to finish up, thanks for your many comments. To demonstratethat what you're saying sounds completely reasonable and supported, Ihave made cautious edits to Nephilim, 1 Enoch, Ethiopian OrthodoxChurch and Bible translations (Amharic) in line with your translationabove, but with [citation needed] and left in the text. I expect some moreregular user of the pages will see those and fill them in. I would urge younot 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 righthere, and I am assuring you that you can have good faith that theversion 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

Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Til, I'll edit as you say! :) + would it be asking too much also tohave Henok 2:2: and the Offspring of Seth, who were uponthe Holy Mount as Amharic script? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 8July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for edits. I've added your translations in refs, as they will belost on the Talk page. Dead Sea scrolls are earliest FWIW. It occursto me that those street vendors selling copies to Dillman etc (A-Q)may have done so because the EO church had thrown them outexactly because of the sons of God reading. Touches on a majorissue with all 19thC mss acquisitions in Greek too. In ictu oculi (talk)04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There must be a better fontThe words "Mount Hermon" as seen on the main page, uses a font thatconfuses/merges the letter R and the letter M together. Some would takeit as 2 letter N's. The same can be said when in some instances thenumber one and the small letter L are placed side by side, some fontsmake both characters look exactly the same. Mpau0516 (talk) 15:37, 20July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean in "summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it MountHermon", I don't believe there is any choice of font. It might be yourbrowser. You could ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. We can't changeit. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Albanian language claimNephilim has a striking similarity with Albanian language word nefillimwhich means "in the biggining". Ne = in, fillim = beginning. Albanianlanguage is a descendand of the old Pelazgic language in Balkans. It isthought to be the oldest language of Europe and root of most Europeanlanguages. Someone with necessary knowledge should analyze andpropose references to this claim. Preceding unsigned comment added by212.112.53.86 (talk contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and put your stuff atthe 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 EvolutionDespite Evolutions rise, and the increase in more and more fossils beingfound. I just don't find them entirely separate. Supposedly, Modern manshowed up at least 100,000 years ago, and Neaderthals were around till60,000 years ago. Hmmm... If you really really read the text in DiscoverMagazine (May 2011, Pages 48-55, 76) "you are not human" you'll getyour science fact/fiction equivalent of this story.

The article entails details that several migration of human ancestors leftafrica PROCEDING modern humans, 'those that came before' really leftbefore us, we didn't leave them behind we just followed them out. and myfinal quote "They found that the Neanderthal Genome shows moresimiliarity with non-african modern humans throught Europe and Asia,than with African-modern humans, suggesting that the gene flowbetween us and Neanderthals most likely occurred outside Africa ashumans were en route to Europe, asia, and new Guinea." Mysupposition, Since africa is where the evolutions accelerated, not only didwe outgrow our neanderthal ancestors there through constant evolutionthat borders on the 'impossible' we bred back with them as we left.... OhWait this sound disturbingly close to the BIBLE~! better run away beforesome calls me a creationist. DISCUSS THAT HA! Preceding unsignedcomment 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)

Niflheim Tag RequestI accidently found Niflheim (one of the realms of Nordic tradition)looking for this page. A tag at the top of the page reading Did you mean"Niflheim"? should not hurt anything.174.25.129.229 (talk) 03:22, 8 June2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

They're false cognates, and from different mythologies, so... Unlessthey 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 QuotationI believe it would be apposite to quote the Jewish Publication Society'sTorah, 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 acrossWikipedia to only use the 1917 or 1985 JPS/NJPS. Scholarlyworks, whether Jewish/Christian/agnostic generally use theNRSV or ESV, but Wikipedia doesn't have a policy. If there's aparticular Jewish or Protestant or Catholic edge to an articlemaybe. But then read WP:RS we aren't supposed to be relyingon Primary Sources anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 13September 2011 (UTC)

More video games/comics blah blahCan we please have a Nephilim in popular culture like Lilith in popularculture fork? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to seriously consider mentioningneanderthalsThe first generation of hybrids that populated the planet had neanderthalfathers and sapiens mothers (sons of God, daughters of man). We knowthis because we recently sequenced the neanderthal genome and foundadmixture signatures in human nuclear DNA but not humanmitochondrial DNA (which is exclusively matrilineal). In light of this newevidence, fossil hybrids that were previously considered controversial arenow, in retrospect, rather obvious examples of admixed ancestors withless bias towards sapiens genes. There is limited evidence that moreevenly hybridized populations may have persisted until very, veryrecently in certain parts of the world. I realize you probably aren't going toedit the main page just yet, but you should consider this a warning that atleast a few theories long ago dismissed as crackpot are about to bedusted 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 anyOriginal synthesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011(UTC)

A quick glance on Google books shows some stuff, but it's allkinda minor primary sources on the belief that neanderthals andnephilim are connected in some way. I'd wait until there's asecondary source describing that type of eisegesis, because ifwe describe a one guy's view, proponents of other views will editwar about their differing views; and if we go with a few differentviews we'll either violate WP:SYNTH (if we condense things theright amount) or WP:UNDUE (if we don't condense). Asecondary source could easily be written (though I'm not findingany), 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 manhypothesis -- wikipedia's own article dates Neanderthals as co-existingwith Cro Mangnons. I'd be interested to hear and discussions here on thetalk page, I am reading about this connection at the momemnt andinterested 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 first try, 35000-10000 would be thedates 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 anoral tradition to persist before writing down in 3000BC. But no lessprobable than the alternative explanations I think!) Preceding unsignedcomment 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 besaid here, by our Original research policy. Basically, it means wecan't make any new point that an externally published source hasn'talready made in relation to the article topic, Nephilim. TilEulenspiegel (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 andguidelines, including WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and others. It mightcertainly be possible to include such information in an articlemore directly focused on that particularly topic, such as, forinstance, a book which clearly meets our notabilityrequirements, or a separate article if it has been referred to bymultiple sources in a way which does not violate WP:SYNTHand other policies and guidelines, but it would almost certainlybe best to first create such a separate article, and then discussadding relevant material to this article. John Carter (talk) 18:46,3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found a recent 2012 academic source that mentionsthe connection and have added it (HUMAN UNIQUENESS,THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND ANTHROPOCENTRISMOF THE GAPS IN THE RELIGION AND SCIENCEDIALOGUE, Joshua M. Moritz,2012, DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01240.x). That's in a proper 40year old jounral, impact factor 0.36, with professors fromHarvard and Yale on its board. I hope this is useful andinteresting to readers. (And thanks for pushing me tosearch properly for this.) Charleswfox (talk) 09:27, 4 May2012 (UTC)

If you've got something like that mentioning the articlesubject, it would be great to add its take on it, but wecan't expand that too much with a discussion ofneanderthals citing sources about neanderthals, unlessthe same point has been made by a source referencingNephilim. Discussion of neanderthals usingneanderthal sources would belong on the neanderthalsarticle. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what this article is, (HUMANUNIQUENESS, THE OTHER HOMINIDS, ANDANTHROPOCENTRISM OF THE GAPS IN THERELIGION 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 alink to put someone has removed the sectionagain! I'll quote some of the text here, it'scopyrighted but should be OK to quote a bit on thistalk page to illustrate the relevance:


39 von 50 11.03.14 00:42

"The idea that there were (or are) other humanoid beings who oncewalked the earth is nothing new. The ancient Greeks wrote of strangehumanoid races, including centaurs and mermaids, and some, such asthe Milesian philosopher Anaximander, even suggested that humanbeings originally emerged from an aquatic ancestor. As the book ofGenesis paints a picture of the earliest days of humanity, it tells us of anantediluvian race with imposing physical strength that appears to beunrelated to human beings: The Nephilim were on the earth in thosedays. . . . These were the mighty men who were of old, the men ofrenown (Genesis 6:4). Much later, during the first century AD, the Greekhistorian Pliny the Elder wrote of other nonhuman races and humanoidmonstrosities who lived in exotic distant lands. Plinys Natural Historywas handed down to geographers of the Medieval Era, and the Plinianraces were held in the forefront of the minds of the early Europeanexplorers. In this way, as the first Europeans crossed the Atlantic into thenew world, they were already armed with cultural and physiologicaltaxonomies into which racial others and their traditions had long beeninserted. Thus Christopher Columbus, with his annotated copy of PlinysNatural History in hand, and fully expecting to discover

talk:nephilim - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Documents

cclassthis article

nephilim wikipedia

nephilimfrom wikipedia

contents1 nephilim

project page

wikiproject judaism

acollaborative effort

scope of wikiprojectbible