Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?

[PaulSacramento]

I am not going to debate this with you since you have made up your mind.
I will say this:
It is unacceptable to insult and slander anyone, even more so a respected scholar.
I suggest you stop it before we have to take action, understood?
Disagree all you want with any scholar you want, BUT you don't get to insult them and call them "kooks', at least not here, understood?

The guy makes his money by writing sensational books full of gnosis to gullible Christians - he doesn't get special protection because you like and follow him.

Consider yourself warned.

[SoCalExile]

Another writers view:
https://bible.org/seriespage/7-sons-god ... nesis-61-8

Wiki on the term Nephilim, please note the foot notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

the wiki article about the term:
Etymology[edit]
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon (1906) gives the meaning of nephilim as "giants", and holds that proposed etymologies of the word are "all very precarious.[4] Many suggested interpretations are based on the assumption that the word is a derivative of Hebrew verbal root n-ph-l (נ-פ-ל) "fall". Robert Baker Girdlestone[5] argued in 1871 the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem, implying that the nephilim are to be perceived as "those that cause others to fall down". Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form "ones who have fallen", grammatically analogous to paqid "one who is appointed" (i.e., overseer), asir "one who is bound" (i.e., prisoner), etc.[6][7]

The majority of ancient biblical versions—including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti—interpret the word to mean "giants".[8] Symmachus translates it as "the violent ones"[9][10][11] and Aquila's translation has been interpreted to mean either "the fallen ones"[9] or "the ones falling [upon their enemies]".[11][12]

Bingo. You just undermined your own argument. Thank you. You're using non-Hebrew sources. The fact is that "generations" has nothing to do with genetics. And your links don't make a very good argument, one such bad argument is, " Nowhere are the Sethites called the ‘the sons of God.’" well, it doesn't refer to heavenly messengers being sons of God either.

[SoCalExile]

I am not going to debate this with you since you have made up your mind.
I will say this:
It is unacceptable to insult and slander anyone, even more so a respected scholar.
I suggest you stop it before we have to take action, understood?
Disagree all you want with any scholar you want, BUT you don't get to insult them and call them "kooks', at least not here, understood?

The guy makes his money by writing sensational books full of gnosis to gullible Christians - he doesn't get special protection because you like and follow him.

Consider yourself warned.

You're one of those board mods...can't appeal to authority so you abuse authority.

[PaulSacramento]

Another writers view:
https://bible.org/seriespage/7-sons-god ... nesis-61-8

Wiki on the term Nephilim, please note the foot notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

the wiki article about the term:
Etymology[edit]
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon (1906) gives the meaning of nephilim as "giants", and holds that proposed etymologies of the word are "all very precarious.[4] Many suggested interpretations are based on the assumption that the word is a derivative of Hebrew verbal root n-ph-l (נ-פ-ל) "fall". Robert Baker Girdlestone[5] argued in 1871 the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem, implying that the nephilim are to be perceived as "those that cause others to fall down". Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form "ones who have fallen", grammatically analogous to paqid "one who is appointed" (i.e., overseer), asir "one who is bound" (i.e., prisoner), etc.[6][7]

The majority of ancient biblical versions—including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti—interpret the word to mean "giants".[8] Symmachus translates it as "the violent ones"[9][10][11] and Aquila's translation has been interpreted to mean either "the fallen ones"[9] or "the ones falling [upon their enemies]".[11][12]

Bingo. You just undermined your own argument. Thank you.

Are you dense ???

you said this:

Except Hebrew is a concrete language, and "nĕphiyl" does not always translate as one of large physical stature: in fact, the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon states it means "excellent, noble, skillful" or "falling on, attacking": https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 303&t=NKJV

Did you even research this or just accept what kooks like Michael Heiser say?

The article just stated that it IS translated to giants in these tranlations:
The majority of ancient biblical versions—including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti—interpret the word to mean "giants".

WTF dude??

[SoCalExile]

Another writers view:
https://bible.org/seriespage/7-sons-god ... nesis-61-8

Wiki on the term Nephilim, please note the foot notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

the wiki article about the term:
Etymology[edit]
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon (1906) gives the meaning of nephilim as "giants", and holds that proposed etymologies of the word are "all very precarious.[4] Many suggested interpretations are based on the assumption that the word is a derivative of Hebrew verbal root n-ph-l (נ-פ-ל) "fall". Robert Baker Girdlestone[5] argued in 1871 the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem, implying that the nephilim are to be perceived as "those that cause others to fall down". Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form "ones who have fallen", grammatically analogous to paqid "one who is appointed" (i.e., overseer), asir "one who is bound" (i.e., prisoner), etc.[6][7]

The majority of ancient biblical versions—including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti—interpret the word to mean "giants".[8] Symmachus translates it as "the violent ones"[9][10][11] and Aquila's translation has been interpreted to mean either "the fallen ones"[9] or "the ones falling [upon their enemies]".[11][12]

Bingo. You just undermined your own argument. Thank you.

Are you dense ???

That's more like it.

[SoCalExile]

The article just stated that it IS translated to giants in these tranlations:
The majority of ancient biblical versions—including the Septuagint, Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Targum, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti—interpret the word to mean "giants".

WTF dude??

Read the rest of your link:

Many suggested interpretations are based on the assumption that the word is a derivative of Hebrew verbal root n-ph-l (נ-פ-ל) "fall". Robert Baker Girdlestone[5] argued in 1871 the word comes from the Hiphil causative stem, implying that the nephilim are to be perceived as "those that cause others to fall down". Ronald Hendel states that it is a passive form "ones who have fallen", grammatically analogous to paqid "one who is appointed" (i.e., overseer), asir "one who is bound" (i.e., prisoner), etc.[6][7]

So again, here's the problem. You've lost the "sons of God" argument based on your own hermeneutic of using the NT to interpret the OT. The definitions you rely on aren't in agreement. You want to claim a argument from popularity, but the fact is it doesn't fit the text based on the context and co-texts. There is no reference to "seed" but instead "generation" in regards to Noah, so the argument that DNA is what s being talked about goes out the window - in fact, it pretty much confirms that DNA isn't the issue, but the heart of men other than Noah and his sons.

PS - whats really messed up is that you only quoted the part of the Wiki link that you think supports your argument. Actually reading the link paints a much broader picture:

Ezekiel 32:27 contains a phrase of disputed meaning. With the traditional vowels added to the text in the medieval period, the phrase is read gibborim nophlim ("fallen warriors," or "fallen Gibborim, although some scholars read the phrase as gibborim nephilim ("Nephilim warriors" or "warriors, Nephilim").[16][17][18] According to Ronald S. Hendel, the phrase should be interpreted as "the Nephilim of old," in a reference to Genesis 6:4. The verse as understood by Hendel reads, "They lie with the warriors, the Nephilim of old, who descended to Sheol with their weapons of war. They placed their swords beneath their heads and their shields upon their bones, for the terror of the warriors was upon the land of the living."[19] Brian R. Doak, on the other hand, proposes to read the term as the Hebrew verb "fallen" (nophlim), not a use of the specific term "Nephilim," but still according to Doak a clear reference to the Nephilim tradition as found in Genesis.[20]

The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan [a medieval source -SCE] and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries.

Orthodox Judaism has taken a stance against the idea that Genesis 6 refers to angels or that angels could intermarry with men. Shimon bar Yochai pronounced a curse on anyone teaching this idea. Rashi and Nachmanides followed this. Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3:1–3 may also imply that the "sons of God" were human.[34] Consequently, most Jewish commentaries and translations describe the Nephilim as being from the offspring of "sons of nobles", rather than from "sons of God" or "sons of angels".[35] This is also the rendering suggested in the Targum Onqelos, Symmachus and the Samaritan Targum which read "sons of the rulers", where Targum Neophyti reads "sons of the judges".

Likewise, a long-held view among some Christians is that the "sons of God" were the formerly righteous descendants of Seth who rebelled, while the "daughters of men" were the unrighteous descendants of Cain, and the Nephilim the offspring of their union.[36] This view, dating to at least the 1st century AD in Jewish literature as described above, is also found in Christian sources from the 3rd century if not earlier, with references throughout the Clementine literature,[37] as well as in Sextus Julius Africanus,[38] Ephrem the Syrian[39] and others. Holders of this view have looked for support in Jesus' statement that "in those days before the flood they [humans] were ... marrying and giving in marriage" (Matthew 24:38).[40]

So much for it being the traditional view.

[Stu]

Kooks You making a lot of friends on these boards hey.
How about you tone down the holier than thou, know it all attitude, relax and just debate. Your opinion is one of many here.

Also, how did giants come into being then if not through the mating of angels and earth women?

Paul dished out the "holier than thou, know it all attitude" and he's having problems when it's dished back. Let him take it like a man and actually defend his position rather than his current methods.

All I'm saying is, just relax a little.

Also you never answered my question - how did giants come to be on the earth if not through the mating of woman and fallen angels?

[PaulSacramento]

You are dense.
The Septugaint was written BEFORE the NT era, was the bible used by Jesus and His followers and it translates it "giants".
You obviously did not read the article or the footnotes and links and you just going on "confirmation bias".

Honestly, what is wrong with you?
You insult respected scholars, argue with the likes of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, the new american bible, the jerusalem bible, even the ESV.
Dude, you need to get a grip, seriously.

[SoCalExile]

Also you never answered my question - how did giants come to be on the earth if not through the mating of woman and fallen angels?

It's not necessarily referring to physical stature as the word "giants" in English does:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5303&t=KJV

[PaulSacramento]

So much for it being the traditional view.

Orthodox Judaism is from Rabbinic Judaism which is AFTER the second temple Judaism we are talking about and the 1st centuries of the NT.

Oivay ! *facepalm*

[PaulSacramento]

Kooks You making a lot of friends on these boards hey.
How about you tone down the holier than thou, know it all attitude, relax and just debate. Your opinion is one of many here.

Also, how did giants come into being then if not through the mating of angels and earth women?

Paul dished out the "holier than thou, know it all attitude" and he's having problems when it's dished back. Let him take it like a man and actually defend his position rather than his current methods.

All I'm saying is, just relax a little.

Also you never answered my question - how did giants come to be on the earth if not through the mating of woman and fallen angels?

It's ONE possible interpretation Stu.
That is the point.
All of the neighbouring civilizations had stories of "giants" and so forth, of them being "quasi-divine".

[Stu]

Also you never answered my question - how did giants come to be on the earth if not through the mating of woman and fallen angels?

It's not necessarily referring to physical stature as the word "giants" in English does:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5303&t=KJV

How do explain this then:

Num 13:33
And there we saw the giants, H5303 the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: H5303 and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

[SoCalExile]

So much for it being the traditional view.

Orthodox Judaism is from Rabbinic Judaism which is AFTER the second temple Judaism we are talking about and the 1st centuries of the NT.

Oivay ! *facepalm*

Now read the rest of it instead of cherry-picking MY quotes.

[PaulSacramento]

Also you never answered my question - how did giants come to be on the earth if not through the mating of woman and fallen angels?

It's not necessarily referring to physical stature as the word "giants" in English does:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5303&t=KJV

How do explain this then:

Num 13:33
And there we saw the giants, H5303 the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: H5303 and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Some suggest that this was a "bad report" in the sense that it was made up to motivate them NOT to go in there.
I don't think t hat is the case because not only didn't it work, it was consistent with other statements about "giants" ( like Goliath and Og).
Regardless, that there was a view that clans of people that were above average is clear, or why else mention it ?

[SoCalExile]

Also you never answered my question - how did giants come to be on the earth if not through the mating of woman and fallen angels?

It's not necessarily referring to physical stature as the word "giants" in English does:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 5303&t=KJV

How do explain this then:

Num 13:33
And there we saw the giants, H5303 the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: H5303 and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

I.e., easily crushed. The bigger problem in this passage is how do you account for the existence of these angel-hybrids that apparently didn't warrant judgement from God? And were descendants of a tribe of men?
Anak: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 6061&t=KJV
Note it's other uses in the bible; this is clearly a tribe of men.