First I want to advise fellow critics of the Hybrid view to stop making bad arguments. What Jesus said about Marriage and the Resurrection in Matthew 22 had a specific purpose, I do still believe we will be having sex in the Resurrection because it's the Restoration of before the Fall. The Marriage that is done away with is the patriarchal marriage of Genesis 3. And nothing in Hebrews 1 proves Angels can't be called Sons of God, the key word in that verse is begotten, only Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
Calling this view the "Sethite view" does it a disservice because it makes it sound like it's the Racist view, when what made me grow more and more uncomfortable with the Hybride view is how it is constantly tied into racist beliefs. The real point of the Sethite view reaffirms how spiritual intermarriage is the only mixed marriage Yahuah truly objects to. Now it may have so happened that the peoples descended from Enosh may have been most likely to be followers of Yahuah in the Pre-Flood world, like how it was Israel Post-Flood, but that is not the actual point.
I get annoyed when people like Chuck Missler say that the end of Genesis 4 where it says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuah" it actually says "profane the name of Yahuah" in the Hebrew. Because this is actually the exact same Hebrew phraseology used when Abraham called upon the Name of Yahuah at Shechem and Bethel in Genesis 12. If this "Profane" interpretation began among the Rabbis, it was probably a product of their Non-Biblical idea that you aren't supposed to pronounce the Name of Yahuah, that verbally saying it at all profanes it. And it's the same wording used in Joel 2, quoted by Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Romans 10 for saying that All who Call upon The Name of Yahuah shall be Saved.
The Bible definitely describes Gigantic people in certain narratives, but no word used in Genesis 6 or any other Pre-Flood narrative actually means that. We don't need supernatural hybridization to make that happen, I think this ancient Gigantism, distinct from the modern known condition, was simply a natural part of Noah's genetic potential that has been lost. But perhaps sometimes was triggered by cross breeding similar to why Lygers get so big.
Nephilim is a word used only three times in all of Scripture, in two passages, Genesis 6 and Numbers 13. The problem is using Numbers 13 to help us define the word has a major problem.
In Numbers 13:21-25, the narrative voice describes the Anakim and it never calls them Nephilim or describes them as Gigantic. Numbers 13:27-29 is the first description of the Anakim and others in Canaan the spies give, and still not yet called Nephilim or gigantic.
Caleb's good report comes next, and he doesn't use the word Nephilim or talk about giants. Then comes Numbers 13:31-33. In verse 32 the narrator says "and they gave an evil report of the land they had searched". The Hebrew word translated "evil report" is also sometimes translated "defaming" and "slander", like in Numbers 14:36 referencing back to this report saying it was a slander.
It is this report that first talks about the Anakim having great stature and in verse 33 twice uses the word Nephilim. What they are saying is not accurate, they are exaggerating, and may have themselves not been using this word correctly. And this passage is probably the reason translations starting with the Septuagint translated it Giants.
Deuteronomy 1:27-28 is again referencing back to this evil report. Deuteronomy 2:10 calls the Anakim tall, but Saul was also tall compared to most Israelites. Verse 11 says that Emims like the Anakim were "accounted" Rephaim, this word for accounted is also translated esteemed, reckoned, and even imagined. It is again describing a belief that may not be true. Verse 20 again talks about them being "accounted' Rephaim. Verse 21 again calls the Anakim tall, but nothing more. Deuteronomy 9:2 again simply calls the Anakim tall while referencing back to the evil report.
The first time the Anakim are mentioned in Joshua is in 11:21-22, where there is no mention of them being large in size, or Nephilim or Rephaim. Joshua 14:12-15 again references the evil report but without talking about Giants. Joshua 15:13-14 again mentioned the Anakim but no gigantic size. Joshua 21:11 and Judges 1:20 are the last two references to the Anakim and they are again not called Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.
The word Rephaim is also the name of a location in Israel, and sometimes gets translated "giants" even when referring to that location. The Rephaim as a group of people are first mentioned in Genesis 14 and 15.
The remaining references to the Rephaim are in Deuteronomy 3:11, Joshua 12:4, and 13:12. Which all call Og the king of Bashan the remnant or all the remains of the Rephaim. Og was defeated and killed by Israel in the time of Moses, well before the Anakim were in the time of Joshua. So if Og was the last of the Rephaim, then this repeatedly recorded belief that the Anakim were Rephaim must be wrong.
And it also proves the word Rephaim doesn't mean Giant because Goliath came later and he's never called a Rephaim, neither are his brothers. If Rephaim means giant then Goliath's existence creates a contradiction.
The term BeniElohim, translated "Sons of God", only appears in Genesis 6 and Job in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Many Christians on this issue have argued the idea of believers being Sons of God isn't introduced until the New Testament in John 1. And that Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God is different because Adam was a "direct creation of God". The problem is that the debate about if this term refers to angels or humans or both and if so when forgets that more verses are relevant to this issue then just those that use that exact phrase.
Exodus 4:22-23 Yahuah says to Pharaoh "Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.". Deuteronomy 14:1 says "Ye are the children of Yahuah your God", the word for children being Ben.
In the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts...
"When the Highest divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For Yahuah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.".A DSS manuscript of this verse however says BeniElohim instead of "sons of Israel", which has lead many scholars to insist that must be the original and tie it into Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6 to create an idea that Elyon divided the 70 nations of Genesis 10 between 70 divine/angelic Principalities. However, whatever is the original maybe the copyist who changed it simply felt "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" meant the same thing? When Jacob came into Mizraim his family was 70, and in Numbers 11 we see another 70 for Israel. Jesus had His 70 Disciples also. Deuteronomy foretells Israel to be scattered to all the nations. And Romans 11 tells us the fullness of the gentiles will be grafted into Israel.
Psalm 82:6, a verse Jesus quoted, says "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Highest.". This is a Psalm of Asaph, and it sounds like it's referencing back to something. When Jesus quotes it He attributes it to The Torah.
Also in the Book of Hosea, just read 1:10 and 11:1. In the latter Yahuah called Israel collectively His Son singular. But in the former he says the children of Israel are sons of the living God, present tense.
In II Samuel 7:14 Yahuah through Nathan tells David that Solomon will be His Son and He will be Solomon's Father. And eventually Solomon's great failing in 1 Kings 11 is tied to exactly what Sethite View proponents think the Sons of God did wrong in Genesis 6.
Ezekiel 16 begins by speaking of Israel as Yahuah's adopted daughter.
Malachi chapter 3 warns against marrying the Daughter of a Strange god. If the followers of strange gods are refereed to as their children, then clearly the followers of Yahuah are His children as well.
Even what's said in John 1 is not contradicting that believers already were God's Children. It says The Word came unto "His Own" and "His own received Him not" and then He gave others the ability to become Sons of God. The implication is that "His Own" were Sons of God already, or were supposed to be anyway.
Job provides the only place where the Hebrew term "BeniElohim" is used in a way where it seems impossible to say it's human believers and not Angels. And it's not even at the beginning, one could argue those are deceased believers in Heaven, or that this takes place in the congregation of an Earthly Mishkan, which is repeatedly refereed to as the Presence of Yahuah, as well as of Eden when Cain left it in Genesis 4. Ezekiel 28 tells us Satan was in the Garden of God and the Mountain of God (a term used only of Sinai), and because of the stones mentioned maybe implies he was the High Priest of that Mishkan.
It's the reference to BeniElohim and Morning Stars singing and shouting for joy when the foundations of the Earth were laid, in 38:4-7. Which then gets cross referenced with other precedent for calling Angels stars.
Thing is, Job unlike Deuteronomy and Psalm 82 isn't quoted by Jesus in the New Testament. But even with viewing it as God's Word it could still be viewed as a poetic narrative or parable and not literal history. And maybe how all these things said in Job 38 connect to each other is being misunderstood. In Revelation 2:28 Jesus says He will give the Morning Star to the over-comer. And Job 38:6 refers to The Corner Stone, something everywhere else we know is a title of Christ, so God could have been speaking Prophetically. And then there is the theory many Nephilim theorists like that the Great Pyramid was a Pre-Flood monument built by Sethites and the Corner Stone was it's Capstone. Verse 7 does seem to be about the Flood.
What Nebuchadnezzar says of the Angel who appeared in the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3 also gets cited. This is an Aramaic term (that should be translated sons of the gods, plural) being used by a Pagan Gentile King who didn't became properly a believer till chapter 4. It's definitely not for building doctrine. (But also this scene is commonly viewed as a Theophany, this is The Angel of Yahuah, The Word of God, not a common ordinary Angel.)
And that Pagan belief is why Skeptics agree with the Hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 (they just don't think it actually happened) because they're seeing it in the context of how the Pagan texts of Ugarit called the gods of their pantheon the sons of El their chief god, and one at least says there were 70. Actual Believers should be resisting that Pagan interpretation of the text rather then embracing it.
But perhaps it's disingenuous to use external sources or even later Torah verses to interpret Genesis 6 either way. Let's think about what this term likely meant in the context of reading through Genesis blind chronologically. The only prior precedent for something like Angels are the Cherubim and maybe the Serpent, none of them are in any way called sons of Elohim.
But when Eve gave birth to Seth near the end of Genesis 4, Seth is called a Son and then Eve says that Elohim appointed her another seed. Seth is called at his introduction a Son as well as from Elohim. (Additionally Genesis 4:1 could be read as saying Yahuah is a co-father of Cain in some way.) Even if I acquiesced to the Skeptics who think this text was originally written from a Pagan viewpoint, the ancient Pagans often didn't view the idea of having a Human father and a Divine father as contradictory, Alexander didn't think of it as denying Philip as his father when he claimed to be the Son of Zeus-Amon, Herakles was still heir to his father's royal line, and Oedipus was called a Son of Helios even though his story is built around him being the son of Laius. So there is both a Pagan and a Monotheistic justification for reading that verse as proclaiming Seth a son of Elohim. Also God-Human Hybrids (or Demigods) were mainly a Greek concept in antiquity, I've found no solid evidence of Near Eastern, Mesoptamian or Egyptian belief in similar Divine-Human Hybrids.
However maybe Genesis shouldn't be interpreted so independently. The first 5 books of The Bible are called the "books of Moses", but only 4 are directly about Moses. Perhaps Genesis is meant to be looked at as a Prequel, and everything in it should be interpreted in terms of how it anticipates, foreshadows and sets the stage for the Mosaic narrative. As a long time Star Wars Prequel Trilogy apologist and more recently a fan of Fate/Zero, I feel uniquely qualified to analyze Genesis as a Prequel.
In which case there is nothing in Exodus-Deuteronomy defining Angels as Sons of God, but plenty of precedent for believers being sons of Yahuah which I already cited above. And there is no narrative from Moses time about Angels interbreeding with Humans, but a number of passages about the danger of Yahuah's people marrying those who serve other gods. Numbers 25:1 even says "daughters of Moab" in a way that parallels "daughters of Adam". In fact later parts of Genesis say "daughters of Canaan", "daughters of the Canaanites", and "daughters of Heth" talking about the same issue. And beyond the Torah, Judges 14 uses "daughters of the philistines".
When defending the genealogies of Jesus, we love to point out how in the Hebrew mindset you can be called the Son of anyone your parents descended from. So Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God absolutely proves Humans can be called sons of God. But during this mortal life non believers are currently estranged children, I of course believe God intends to bring everyone back in eventually, but it's us believers who already are.
The main reason lots of Christians have supported the Hybrid view is the apparent New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude. Even though offspring of these "rebel angels' are not refereed to in those verses.
2 Peter 2:4 and 5 are possibly not even about the same thing. Verse 4 could seemingly be describing Dathan and Korah's rebellion.
Jude verses 6 and 7 are viewed as comparing the Genesis 6 incident to Sodom and Gomorrah. In my past studies on what Jude says about Sodom, I said both these incidents are about lust between angels and humans, emphasizing how "strange" in strange flesh means different, alien, foreign, ect. But now I recall how my greater point about the Sin of Sodom is how Ezekiel and Jesus define it has being inhospitable to foreigners. I should have realized sooner that Jude's intent was to condemn them for their desire to rape foreigners traveling through them.
Jude mentioned Korah in verse 11, could it be this is all connected and he was also thinking of that incident in verse 6? Verse 5 seems to set up the context as after the Exodus. And you can't object to Jude then going backwards chronologically when he mentions Sodom in verse 7 because verse 11 also listed the people it refers to out of their chronological order.
Chuck Missler makes a thing out of a rarely used word for Habitation in Jude 11. Paul's use of Oiketerion in 1 Corinthians 5:5 follows a reference to the Tabernacle in verse 1. Thing is, Mishkan also means Habitation, Dathan and Korah created their own Tabernacle that their followers chose over the Tabernacle of Moses and Aaron.
I think the Greek root normally translated Tabernacle in the KJV is the Greek equivalent to Ohel, since it literally means Tent and is used of both the Mishkan and the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7. I think Oiketerion should be viewed as the proper Greek equivalent of Mishkan. A number of OT verses use Ohel and Mishkan interchangeably.
In the past I've argued Nephilim means Fallen Ones because it comes from Naphal meaning fall. And viewed that as supporting it being of Fallen Angels because of Isaiah 14:12's use of Naphal. But believers can also "fall away" or "fall from grace". Maybe Nephilim originally meant Apostates or Apostasy? It is often said that Apostasy is the theme of Jude. Numbers 14:43 is also considered relevant to the issue of Apostasy, being possibly drawn on in Hebrews 6, and it uses Naphal.
Now in Number 13:33 it could be a wrong understanding of the word already existed, again we are told not to trust that account. But hypothetically if at least that word was used accurately, there are ways one could argue the Anakim were Apostates, maybe people who once followed Melchizedek and then fell away and traveled south towards Hebron.
Rob Skiba has attempted to make a point for his peculiar view by saying the second use of Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 is spelled the same as in Genesis 6 but the first use is different. Hence him arguing these Nephilim came from the Genesis 6 Nephilim. In the view I've proposed here, it could be these contemporary Anakim were not technically Apostates, but being called something similar because they descended from Apostates. Or more simply I could translate it "Apostates of the Apostasy".
The Enochian literature is all influenced by Greek mythological and philosophical ideas. I've been arguing against viewing such apocryphal literature as canon since way back when I did still believe in Angel-Human Hybrids. Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of them predate Greek influence.
But what's annoying is how people act like Apocryphal literature is universal in taking the Hybrid view. The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is one example of a text that clearly depicts the Sethite view. The Book of the Cave of Treasures is an older Syriac version of the same story that one tells.
But what really surprised me was to find that Rob Skiba's own precious Book of Jasher supports the Sethite view. Jasher chapter 4 verses 16-18, is clearly that book's version of Genesis 6. Jasher chapter 3 verse 23 does use "Sons of God" seemingly of Angels in heaven, but this is unrelated to anything like the Genesis 6 account. In chapter 4 it's clear that the people who's corruption is linked to marrying "daughters of men" are the men of Seth's clan who this chapter is chronicling.
Jubilees chapter 5 I think could be interpreted as supporting either view, so I'm not gonna go into it. It uses the word Angel but again that can be used of human believers.
I've heard it claimed the Septuagint uses the word Angel in Genesis 6 which Hybrid view supporters point to, but the texts I've seen do not, either way the word can be used of human believers since it means messenger.
The Septuagint's main role in how views on this developed is in translating Nephilim as Gigantes, which is the origin of it being translated Giants, the English word Giant comes from Gigantes. What the Gigantes were originally in Greek mythology however was not even partly human, they were siblings of the Titans.
Which interpretation is older is irrelevant to which one is true. But regardless the Angel view can't be proven to exist before the time of Alexander bringing Greek influence to Judea.
The idea that Genetic Impurity was the reason for The Flood is what makes it the inherently Racist view. The only intermarriage The Torah truly opposes is Spiritual intermarriage. Malachi who is affirmed as a Prophet by the New Testament said it was marrying the daughter of a strange god Yahuah objected to.
Many Racists will use the Sethite view of course. Especially since the most blatantly racist Christians I've found online aren't even Young Earth Creationists and believe the first mixed marriage was Cain and his Wife who they wrongly claim didn't descend from Adam.
And what I'd say in a debate with them, is that if biological intermarriage was the point why did God describe it in Spiritual terms that made this confusion inevitable? If their version of the Sethite view was the intent it would have just said Sons of Seth or Sons of Enosh. But if the Hybrid view was true, it would have simply said Angels or just said Elohim which is already plural and sometimes used of Angels and thus not needed the "sons of" part.
In Genesis 6:11 the reason for the Flood is defined as being that the Earth was filled with Violence. The word translated "corrupt" there is also a word often associated with warfare, being also translated things like perish and spoiler. Verse 12 says man corrupted His way upon the Earth.
And this emphasis on violence is also consistent with the first 4 verses of chapter 6 because the word translated "mighty men" in the KJV is gibborim, which also gets accused of being a word for Giant, but what it means is warrior. It's sometimes used of good warriors in The Bible like David's Mighty Men, and is used of the first Warrior King Nimrod. But in this context it's about the world becoming filled with violence.
Also Genesis 6:4 calls them "Enosh of renown" which in a Pre-flood context I feel verifies they paternally descended from Enosh, since tribal identity in The Bible is usually identified by the father's line.
And the book of Jasher's interpretation of this situation of Sethites taking daughters of men is describing those daughters of men as spoils of war. And even Hybrid view supporters have pointed out that the language in Genesis 6:1-4 can be interpreted as implying the daughters of Adam were taken by force.
The line of Cain was also associated with Violence. From Cain being the first murderer, to whatever Lamech did. To Tubal-Cain's clan being perhaps the world's first weapons manufacturers.
The New Testament says Noah preached repentance, you can't repent of being born a hybrid, but you can repent of living by the sword.
Now you may object that I've made two different thematic connections, a connection to the theme of foreign pagan women leading Israelites astray, and women being raped as spoils of war. But I'd argue those themes do go together.
The main obvious Torah example of the foreign women theme is what happened with the Moabite women because of Balaam. People forget that happened after Israel had just been militarily victorious over Moab. And Solomon's many wives also came mostly from nations David had conquered, and chronologically Rehoboam's Ammonite mother he was married to while David still lived.
Taking women as spoils of war can lead to unwanted foreign cultural influence. To a moderner that's not the actual reason to morally object to the practice, and I'm sure God agrees. But when writing people a religious guide book unintended consequences are what people are more likely to listen to.
Having stated that it isn't the hybrid view, nor the Sethite view - what then is your view for this distinction being made.
ReplyDeleteIt's a variation of the Sethite view, I'm just defining it Spiritually rather then Biologically.
Delete