At Satan’s Command: A New Translation of The Mt Hermon Inscription

Corrupting the Image 2 chapter 8

In 1869 on the summit of Mt. Hermon, in Israel, British explorer Sir Charles Warren came across a sacred rectangular building made of hewn stone blocks, located at Qasr Antar, the highest temple in the ancient world (9,232 ft. or 2,814 m. above sea level, See Figure 1). In the temple, he found a limestone stele which may be the only extra-biblical and pagan memorial of Satan’s actual command to the Sons of God to create a hybrid race.

Schematic of Temple on Hermon, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1869-1936. London.

We know that this mountain has long been regarded as a holy place. E.A. Myers believes the finding of the inscription is very much in line with the pagan history of the mountain:

That such an enclosure, as first reported by Warren, exists on the summit of Hermon lends credence to a long tradition of the sacred high place, and supports the textual evidence for it as a holy mountain. It also provides evidence for the endurance of a people who must have made considerable effort to come and worship within such a harsh and cruel environment. That the mountain preserved its sacredness throughout is dramatically demonstrated by the presence of numerous temples and cult sites.[1]

The British Museum dates the inscription to the 3rd century, though I am persuaded it might have been written earlier, between the 8th – 3rd centuries BC. The earlier date is supported by evidence on the inscription and by the Messapic evidence that we will examine shortly. Thus, based on the long pagan history of the locale, it is likely that the pagan scribes chiseled the inscription with a phrase that had passed down orally for millennia.

The Inscription With Satan’s Command

We are indebted to Warren for finding and delivering the inscribed stele to the British Museum,[2] and as shown in Figure 2, we are provided a chance to view the inscription on the actual stele at the British Museum’s website.[3] Comparing the parallel translations of Warren and Harvard scholar, George Nickelsburg, with that of the British Museum, reveals discrepancies and even the omission of several words. Their translations are below; the omissions in the British Museum’s translation are represented by brackets. The inserted words in the Warren-Nickelsburg translation are in italics.

  • The British Museum’s translation, (written on the base of the inscription): “Hence by order of the [ ] God [ ] [ ], those who do not take the oath.”
  • Warren and Nickelsburg’s parallel translation:[4] Κατά κέλευσιν θεού μεγίστου κ[αι] άγιου οι ομνύοντες εντεύθεν “According to the command of the great a[nd] holy God, those who take an oath [proceed] from here.” [5]

Warren-Nickelsburg rightly connected the inscription with the oath taken by the angels under Semjaza[6] in order to take wives, according to the Book of Enoch.[7] Nickelsburg also skillfully realized “the name of God was supposed to be a Hellenized version of Baʿal or Hadad and … connected it with the place name of Baal-Hermon (Lord of Hermon).” [8]

Surprisingly, though, Warren-Nickelsburg inserted the words “a[nd] holy” which do not appear in the inscription. This interpretation gives the impression that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave the command to angels to create the race of Nephilim, but He did not.

Hermon Inscription, Courtesy of the British Museum 1903-0422.

Rather, the one who sent those angels was Satan; and this is a fact which we will see the inscription proves. In 1 Enoch, “the Holy and Mighty One” (1 Enoch 1:3) is mentioned. However, the angels that descended and took the oath acted in opposition to the Holy and Mighty One’s decrees—not in accordance, as evidenced in 1 Enoch:

3And now to you, O you holy one of heaven, the souls of men complain, saying, Obtain Justice for us …6Samyaza also has taught sorcery, to whom you have given authority over those who are associated with him. They have gone together to the daughters of men; have lain with them; have become polluted; 15To Michael likewise the Lord said, Go and announce his crime to Samyaza (1 Enoch 9:3, 6, 10:15)(Emphasis mine).

Clearly, the “holy one of heaven” is referring to God (YHWH / Jehovah), and He did not command the angels to make the Nephilim.

Need for a Retranslation

Due the wide divergences and omissions, I believe a reexamination of the inscription is necessary. I have tried to simplify the linguistic evidence, but if you do not care for it, I invite you to skip to the end of the chapter to read the conclusion.

Here is the uncial text transcribed with no spaces as it appears on the inscription:

ΚΑΤΑΚΕΛΕΥΣΙΝΘΕΟΥΜΕΓΙΣΤΟΥΒΟΒΑΤΙΟΥΟΥΟΜΝΥΟΝΤΕΣΕΝΤΕΥΘΕΝ

My normalized transcription of the text is as follows: 1Κατά 2κέλευσιν 3θεού 4μεγίστου 5βο 6βατιου 7ου 8ομνύοντες 9εντεύθεν [kata keleusin theou megistou bo batiou ou omnuontes enteuthen].

The British Museum ignored words four, five and six, skipping three out of nine words, which is 33% of the text. Warren-Nickelsburg’s translation: “a[nd] holy,” amended two words to read differently than what the text says, which we will discuss later. Here is a breakdown of each word according to my reading:

  1. Κατά [kata]: according to
  2. Κέλευσιν [keleusin]: command
  3. Θεού [theou]: of the god (genitive)
  4. Μεγίστου [megistou]: Greatness personified (genitive)
  5. Βο [bo]: uncertain, possibly a prefix for ox
  6. βατιου (Βατιοu): epithet (genitive)
  7. ου [ou]: where
  8. ομνύοντες [omnuontes]: those swearing an oath
  9. εντεύθεν [enteuthen]: [going] from here

My translation of the first three words Κατά κέλευσιν θεού agrees perfectly with the other translations. Liddell Scott Jones Classical Greek Lexicon notes how this three-word phrase is frequently found in inscriptions and papyri.[9]

With the fourth word, μεγίστου, megistou, the British Museum omitted it for unknown reasons. Warren-Nickelsburg rightly included it in their translation. BDAG notes it means: “Greatness, personified.”[10] It was a popular epithet for Zeus.

Since words five and six are enigmatic, we will consider them last because they require ample explanation.

Word seven, ΟΥ, Nickelsburg revised to ΟΙ, which seems ad hoc, as the text clearly reads as ΟΥ (See adjacent Figure 3.). A translator’s job is not to change the text to make it fit his idea, but to deal with the text “as is”. Translators are justified in creativity when something is missing from the text, but here, nothing is missing.

The British Museum translated ΟΥ as the lexical entry οὐ “not”, which is an option. However, a separate lexical entry is οὗ which means: “marker of a position in space, where … ” (BDAG). Context is the only way to know which translation is correct. When we pair this word with word nine εντευθεν ([going] from here), then “where” appears to be the better option, instead of “no.”

The word “ου” visible on the inscription.

Word eight ὀμνύω, is defined by BDAG as: “to affirm the veracity of one’s statement by invoking a transcendent entity, freq. w. implied invitation of punishment if one is untruthful, swear, take an oath …[as נִשְׁבַּע בְּ] in the OT .”[11]

Lastly, word nine εντευθεν is an adverb, according to BDAG, that pertains “to extension from a source near the speaker, from here”.[12] We see this word used in Scripture which provides us examples of the word meaning—going from one place to another:

  • “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from [ἐντεῦθεν] here (Luke 4:9).
  • And the LORD said to Moses, “Go, get down [ἐντεῦθεν]” (Exod 32:7).

Thus words 7, 8, and 9 agree with the translation of Warren and Nickelsburg which is what makes words 5 and 6 such a mystery that deserves our attention.

βο Bo the Bull

Words five and six βο Bo and βατιου Batiou are mysterious, which could be why they were completely ignored by the British Museum and amended by Warren-Nickelsburg; βο to “a(nd)” and βατιου batiou as άγιου hagiou. Frankly, it is a mystery to me how they justified their emendation. While “a(nd) holy” may be an easy fix, we must always ask, “What does the text say?” and, “Does the inscription warrant such renderings?” In the picture of the inscription in Figure 4, you will see a circle around βο and a rectangle around βατιου (batiou is the genitive of batios). Warren-Nickelsburg simply ignored the whole word ΒΟ (beta omicron). With word six, batiou, they changed the Τ (tau) to a Γ (gamma) even though the letters are clear, consistent and not garbled. As we noted already, they were right to see a similarity with 1 Enoch and the oath, per word eight; yet, if this is indeed a record of the imprecation the angels took before taking women and begetting the Nephilim, it was not by decree of the Holy God YHWH. Rather, the decree would have come from Satan.

A circle around “bo” and rectangle around “batiou” on the inscription.

βο bo does not appear as a proper lexical entry in any of the extensive literature I checked—which is likely why careful scholars like Warren-Nickelsburg amended it to “a[nd].”

Nevertheless, “Bo- (βο-), boo- (βοο-), and bou- (βου-) are prefixes meaning bull, ox, male cattle.”[13] Considering that there are no spaces between the letters in the original inscription, it is plausible to read the text as “βο-βατιου” and not do violence to the text. Furthermore, we know Mt. Hermon was also called Baal Hermon in Judges 3:3 and 1 Chronicles 5:23, and that Zeus and Baal are synonymous. Therefore, it follows that βο may be a prefix meaning “bull”, a reference to Baal / Zeus. You may remember Zeus, in Greek mythology, transformed himself into a white bull and carried away Europa, an image which agrees with “the tauromorphic appearance of Baal and other deities in Canaan,” [14] and which confirms that Baal (Zeus) appeared as a bull. Furthermore, “Moloch is merely another name for Ba’al, the Sacred Bull who was widely worshipped in the ancient Near East.”[15]

Thus, based on the bull motif of Baal / Zeus found in the area, βο bo meaning bull, stands as a strong candidate.

Batios in Messapia (Southern Italy)

The word βατιου Batiou is even more enigmatic (batios is nominative, batiou is genitive). I performed an exhaustive search through lexicons, dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly sites and journals, and not one had any information on the word batios. Batiou simply is not Greek (which again, is the only apparent justification good scholars, such as Warren-Nickelsburg, would have for changing letters). I did, however, discover that batios is believed to be an epithet of Zeus (Jupiter) in Messapian speech. (See Figure 5, next page.) “Messapian (also known as Messapic) is an extinct Indo-European language of South-eastern Italy.”[16] Yet, why?

5 Map of Messapia, South-east Italy 6th-2nd cent. BC. Courtesy salentoacolory.it.

So little is known about the Messapian language that the leading scholar Alf Torp (1853–1916) stated: “Hardly more than a few words can be said to have been separated and translated with certainty.”[17] The language has roughly 300 extant inscriptions dating from the 7th / 6th to the 1st century BC.[18] The majority of the inscriptions come from a cave called Grotta Porcinara.

There are several examples of Idde, Batas, and Atiaxte, or fragments of these, which are believed to be names or epithets of the god worshipped there. Several Greek inscriptions from the site are dedications to Zeus Batios … Batas may have been the Messapic name of the god, who also appears to have been equated with Zeus, appearing in a Greek inscription as Zeus Batios (βατιος εμι.)(Emphasis mine).[19]

Thus, we have material evidence in Messapic inscriptions of “Zeus Batios”  used by the Greeks.[20] The Romans made engravings venerating “Juppiter Optimus Maximus Batius (ouVatius).”[21] Both Greek and Roman inscriptions referenced Batios / Batius.

Nevertheless, scholars do not know what batios means. Annick Fenet suggests it could be the epithet of a local deity.[22] Yet, why would an almost unknown Messapian epithet, hidden in a cave of a localized god from south-eastern Italy, be inscribed on a stele 9,000-feet above sea level on the cold, unwelcoming accursed mountain in the land of Bashan?

Batios cannot be a local Messapian epithet because there is no location known as Batios in Messapia (See map in Figure 5 above). For example, we know “Baal Hermon” (Judg 3:3) is a local epithet for Baal because we have a mountain called “Hermon.” Annick Fenet, in Les Dieux Olympiens et la Mer, notes:

According to the cave dedications and ceramic graffiti, since the 6th century BC a Messapian Zis Batas was honored there, recognized as a Zeus Batios by the Greeks, designated also later as Juppiter Optimus Maximus. Caves are mainly devoted to Zeus, albeit under different epiclesis … These Messapian places of worship, dating back to some of the 7th century, were early frequented by Greek sailors who somehow appropriated them (Emphasis mine).[23]

The Grotto in which “batios” was found in Messapia.

Referring to the Grotto in Figure 6, Kathryn Lomas notes that “The sanctuary was clearly an important one, and attracted worshippers from beyond the region despite the difficulties of access (it may have been only accessible by boat in antiquity).”[24] She also notes that:

Grotta Porcinara may provide evidence for religious contact in action, as it offers evidence for the interaction of Greek and non-Greek cults and worshippers. The corpus of inscribed potsherds includes a number of sherds inscribed [idde], which has been identified as Messapic deity name or epithet. Another name or epithet that occurs there is Batas … Other pottery inscriptions, dedications written in Greek to Zeus Batas. The Latin inscriptions on the inside of the cave name the deity as Jupiter Batius. [25]

The attestation of Batas and Idde direct our attention to Hermon rather than Messapia since the worshippers were from outside the region. Annick Fenet comments that the “dual name of Palaistiné and Ourania suggests a Semitic and oriental character.”[26] The presence of sailors worshiping gods with Semitic character must mean they are Semitic-speaking sailors. In personal correspondence with Professor Paolo M. Gensini, University of Perugia, Italy, who is an expert in Messapian texts, he notes that “the Greek and Latin texts from Leuca are all written by or for sailors.”[27]

Thus, Semitic-speaking sailors, probably Phoenician from Tyre or Sidon, inscribed the word “batios” in a cave in southern Italy. If they were coming from the east, such as from Phoenicia, then they certainly would have thanked their home god that got them to their destination safely, rather than a foreign god. Which is to say, batios is not Messapian, but Semitic.

The Phoenicians were renowned sailors, who were Semitic speaking and had Mt. Hermon in their backyard, which is the only other place in the world where the enigmatic word “batios” has been found. Incidentally, in Greek, many people-group names end with ιος. For example: “the Hittites [ο χετταιος], the Jebusites [ο ιεβουσαιος ], and the Amorites [ο αμορραιος] dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanites [ο χαναναιος].” (Num 13:29). Hence, the ιος ending demonstrates a typical Greek-language Semitic-people suffix (ending).

Batios means BAT (=IDIM) who is Enlil, et al

Our text says: “According to the command (Κατά κέλευσιν) of the greatness personified (θεού μεγίστου) βο-βατιου (bull) (of Batios).” There are two distinct possibilities of the origin of batios, though interestingly, they both lead us to the same entity: Enlil / Heilel / Satan.

The Sumerian language was first written using pictograms (AKA logograms). The logogram for BAD

was associated with Enlil, Dagan, Ug (death) and Nergal (god of death and the underworld). In a personal correspondence with Professor Amar Annus of University of Tartu Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden, he notes that:

The names of Dagan in Syria and Enlil in Mesopotamia sometimes share the logograms with which their names are written. dBAD and dKUR for both Enlil and Dagan, which points to a syncretism between their deities, and consequently for their families, including Dagan’s son Ba’al in Syria and Enlil’s son Ninurta in Mesopotamia. This cuneiform sign BAD has many logographic readings throughout history, including BAD for “dead” and BAD.BAD for ug in Sumerian, the latter is only orthographic as much as I can see … The sign BAD can be read as BE as well and taken as an abbreviation of bel – the lord.[28]

Franz Wiggenner expounds on the etymology of “Nergal’s planet … Mars (salbatanu).” He notes how “according to astrological omens Mars spreads death when he rises or flares up.” He goes on to provide a tentative etymology that explains “this role of MUL tzal (sal) bat-a-nu as mushtabarru (ZAL) mutanu (BAD-a-nu)” “(the planet) which spreads plague.”[29] In other words, BAD, also spelled “BAT” [30] is related to death and to Nergal, the god of death. In light of the inscription, it is of great interest that Wiggenner points out “The bull’s head denotes the god of … Nergal’s main cult center.”[31] We found “bo” in the inscription, which we determined meant “bull”; thus, “BAD / BAT” is in concert with that idea.

Amar Annus notes:

The god Dagan is already identified with Sumerian Enlil, father of Ninurta, in Old Babylonian times and they share the logogram BAD (=IDIM). The name of Dagan is written logographically dKUR in Emar as an alternative to the syllabic dDa-gan. dKUR is a shortened form of Enlil’s epithet KUR.GAL “great mountain,” which was borrowed by Dagan, and he is already described as the great mountain in a Mari letter.

The writing dNIN.URTA for a Syrian god in thirteenth century Emar thus attests a conscious syncretism which introduced Sumerian writing for the West Semitic god. The Emar god Ninurta is the son of Dagan, and the equivalence of Dagan and Enlil led the scribes trained in the Mesopotamian system to use this Sumerian writing for the name of his son [32] (Emphasis mine).

In other words, Ninurta is the son of both Enlil and Dagan, because those two gods were considered to be one, as clearly demonstrated by the same logogram BAD / BAT (=IDIM) being the identifier for them both. The “Idde” found in relation to Batios in Grotta Porcinara is almost certainly the “IDIM” related to the logogram BAD. Professor Annus points out:

The Emar god Ninurta most probably corresponds to Ugaritic Baal and the difference in writing the god’s name is simply the result of the use of different writing systems – cuneiform in Emar and alphabetic script in Ugarit. [33]

They have different sounding names due to the writing systems, but the gods are exactly the same.

The logogram BAD / BAT also was used for “Ištaran … the chief deity of Der (Logogram: BAD.AN).”[34] Steve Cole notes how “the logogram BAD is understood to be an abbreviation for the writing of the toponym BAD.AN.KI.”[35] “AN” means “Lord” and “Ki” means “Earth”, an epithet which means Lord of the Earth, which was also the meaning of the name of Nimrod, and we will see in later chapters refers to Ninurta. Thus, writing BAD / BAT was the same as writing out the names of multiple gods, which shows the conscious syncretism that Professor Annus mentioned. The scribes wrote BAD (=IDIM) as the equivalent to Dagan, Enlil, Ninurta and possibly others.

BAT (BAD) is a perfect match; and the ending ιος, which is ios, simply makes it standard Greek. Nevertheless, the general understanding of logograms is that they are not transliterated. Hence, the logogram BAD / BAT would be transliterated as “ug” for example but not as “bad.” Though a pictogram (logogram) was typically not pronounced (transliterated), it was not impossible. Walter Burkert notes how:

Alfred Boissier, who was the first to work systematically on Babylonian liver-omen texts, saw that liver in these texts was consistently written with the Sumerian ideogram HAR; and he at once concluded that this was the etymology for the Latin word haruspex, the first part of which had always defied explanation, while the second part must mean “seer of”; “seer of liver” would perfectly match its use in reference to those Etruscan specialists officiating in Rome[36] (Emphasis mine).

Amar Annus, whom I must thank for bringing this to my attention, notes that in this case “a logogram may have traveled between cultures as a certain learned word.”[37] We therefore have precedence of an otherwise unpronounced Sumerian logogram being transliterated in the West, as unlikely as it seems. Not only was the logogram transliterated, but it was fully Latinized as a compound word—half Sumerian and half Latin. We then draw the conclusion that the logogram BAD / BAT for Enlil, Dagan, Ištaran, dead, Nergal (Mars), Bel (Baal) etc. was understood and consciously syncretized by scribes. It was transliterated into Greek, then Hellenized with the ios ending, and then accompanied by “Idde” (IDIM) in a similar fashion to haruspex. In fact, BAD / BAT may have been the most efficient way to express all the epithets for this entity in just one name. Possibly, the Sumerian BAT was Hellenized with the standard “people group” ios-suffix, and became: BATios.

A Literal Translation of Hermon’s Inscription

In table 5, the inscription is in uncials (capitals) and then in standardized and accented Greek. Then, the translation of the British Museum, Warren-Nickelsburg, and my translations are presented side by side. I am indebted to the scholars who have gone before me, and I hope my translation and analysis contributes to the research of the Hermon inscription.


ΚΑΤΑ ΚΕΛΕΥΣΙΝ ΘΕΟΥ ΜΕΓΙΣΤΟΥ ΒΟ ΒΑΤΙΟΥ ΟΥ ΟΜΝΥΟΝΤΕΣ ΕΝΤΕΥΘΕΝ

 British MuseumWarren / NickelsburgHamp
Normalized Greek transcriptionNone found.Κατά κέλευσιν θεού μεγίστου κ[αι]* άγιου* οι* ομνύοντες εντεύθενΚατά κέλευσιν θεού μεγίστου βο-βατιου ου ομνύοντες εντεύθεν
TranslationHence by order of the god [*] [*] [*] those who do not take the oath.According to the command of the great a[and]* holy* God, those who take an oath [proceed] from here“According to the command of the great bull god Batios [BAD (=IDIM)], those swearing an oath in this place go forth.”
Variants[*] Omitted words: ΜΕΓΙΣΤΟΥ ΒΟ ΒΑΤΙΟΥ*words not in the text. 
Mt. Hermon Roman Inscription 3rd cent.[38]

Table Mt. Hermon Roman Inscription 3rd century

My translation is very close to Warren-Nickelsburg’s translation, despite a few variations.

As we saw earlier, the double superlative Iuppiter optimus maximus, meaningthe “best, greatest,” is in concert with the Hermon inscription θεού μεγίστου theou megistou “the greatness personified god” and was a common epithet for Zeus. βο remains uncertain. Yet, if βο is a prefix for “bull”, then it only underscores the reference to Zeus and is in complete harmony with a well-known phrase found in the Hebrew Bible, “bulls of Bashan.” “Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me” (Ps 22:12).

The translation: “According to the command of the great bull god Batios, those swearing an oath in this place go forth” has the advantage of not making alternations to the text. My translation further reveals the identity of Zeus Batios / Jupiter “Optimus Maximus Batios, AKA Baal / Melqart / Nergal / Heracles / Enlil / Marduk / Ninurta”, as the god who commanded those taking the oath to go forth from that place. In other words, we now have textual evidence that the descent of the sons of God into our realm was under the direction of Satan.

Thus, the angels that came down on the mountain, maledicting themselves lest they fail to complete their task, did so at the command of the great bull-god Batios who was represented as a dragon, whom we know is none other than Satan. These angels who took the oath did not act outside of the parameters of the one who sent them; they did “according to the command of greatness personified,”—even that title sounds like the boasting of Satan who corrupted his wisdom on account of his beauty. Satan gave the order to the watchers to come to Earth, take women, and create the Nephilim in order to keep the Seed of the woman from crushing his head.

Batios = Bashan

It is uncommon that scribes would transliterate the name of the logogram; yet, as we have seen, we have precedence. It also seems to be the simplest way to indicate that the god identified by the BAD / BAT logogram is the one they were invoking. However, it might simply be that Batios = Bashan.

Mount Hermon is in the vicinity of the region of Bashan, which was ruled by “Og king of Bashan … his territory … of the remnant of the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei, (Josh 12:4) and reigned over Mount Hermon, over Salcah, over all Bashan” (Josh 12:5).[39]

Mt. Hermon is also known as Mount Bashan “A mountain of God is the mountain of Bashan; A mountain of many peaks is the mountain of Bashan” (Ps 68:15).

Bashan was rendered in a number of different ways in the ancient near east. The B sometimes turned into a P, which is consistent with phonemes. The Š (SH) turned into a T or TH, again consistent. The M can swap with the N. By the time of the first century, the word Bashan became standardized in Latin and Greek as Batanea.


LanguageOriginalTranslit-erationAttested usageEra (approx.)
AkkadianMUL.dMUŠ mus-sa-tur or usumBašmu – BashmuSerpent-dragon3rd-1st Millennium BC
HebrewבָּשַׁןBashanSerpent-dragon2nd-1st Millennium BC
UgariticbthnBatanSerpent-dragon2nd-1st Millennium BC
AramaicפתןPatanSerpent1st Millennium BC
Greek (LXX)ΒασάνBasan3rd century BC
Greek Place nameΒατανίαBatanía Batanea4th century BC – 3rd century AD
Messapic inscriptionBatasBatasEpithet of Zeus6th-2nd century BC
Greek inscriptionβατιοςBatiosEpithet of Zeus6th-2nd century BC
Latin inscriptionBatius / VatiusBatius / VatiusEpithet of ZeusUp to 3rd century AD
Comparative Table of Bashan Usage

The proposed process to go from the Akkadian Bašmu to batios is as follows: Akk: Bašmu to Hebrew Bashan or Ugaritic Bathan (Ugarit was a coastal town south of Antioch, Syria). Charlesworth points out how “Ugaritic bthn become bšn in Hebrew and is equal to bašmu in Akkadian with the n to m shift.”[40] Why the N (nun / nu) fell off is not clear, though it is possible.[41] For example, Albert T. Clay notes how “the Aramaic vav [ו], as is known, representing m in Babylonian … Cf. Amurru written [אור] or Shamash written [שוש], Murashu, x. p. 8 and 9.”[42] Thus, there might be a similar situation here where the original Bašmu may have simply lost the M all together. Even with it converting from M to N, as noted, the assimilation of the nun in Hebrew is fairly common. The word “bat” [בת] (daughter) has a middle root letter of nun [בנת], which assimilated. The word [נתן] natan loses its final nun in conjugations such as “natati.” Thus, it is entirely possible that the N (nun) of Batan simply fell out, due to a phonetic constraint, as evident in Akkadian. The word was then rendered into Greek as batios, and then exported to Messapia.

The inscriptions in Messapia are dated anywhere from the 7th – 2nd century BC. According to the British Museum, the Hermon Inscription is dated as late as the 3rd century AD. The Septuagint Greek (3rd century BC) renders Bashan as Basan (βασαν). According to the Ancient World Mapping Center and Institute for the Study of the Ancient World Hellenistic Greek, the region was known as Batanea (Βαταναία) [43] in the Roman Republic (330 BC-30 BC) and in the Roman, early Empire (30 BC-AD 300).[44] That means before 330 BC, the area would have maintained its Semitic character, which could explain how the inscription left by sailors in the Porcinara Grotto had “Semitic character.” The Phoenician culture was in decline until about the second century BC, and the destruction of Tyre at the hands of Alexander the Great likely hastened its demise.

We know that Bashan was Bathan in Ugaritic and Patan in Aramaic. Thus, batios may be a shortened and Hellenized form of Batan (Bashan). βο βατιου could mean βο→  Bull, βατιου→  of Bashan, or the Great Bull of Bashan. The psalmist wrote prophetically, “Strong bulls of Bashan surround me” (Ps 22:12). If Batios is Bashan, we know Bashan has the meaning: snake-dragon. Therefore, we have two paths that take us to the same destination: Batios means BAD (IDIM), who was a snake-dragon, or Batios is Bashan which means snake-dragon. Both meanings point to Satan, the great snake-dragon. Either way, it was “According to the command of the great bull-god Satan, the great snake-dragon of Bashan that those swearing an oath in this place go forth.”

In the meantime, Satan continued his schemes to make this Earth his eternal kingdom. He focused his plan of passing on genetic information to one select representative who would champion the cause. This time, however, in an effort to avoid being thrown into the pit like the sons of God who came down on Hermon, he would take a man and make him into a god.

God Thwarted Satan’s Plan for World Domination

God was paying attention to the corruption and violence Satan had caused on the Earth by commanding the sons of God to take women and procreate the Nephilim. “God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (Gen 6:12). God made it clear that all flesh everywhere on the entire planet would die. “I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die” (Gen 6:17).

Satan’s scheme failed. Upon the death of the host body, the spirit inside the Nephilim was separated and the fallen angel became disembodied once again. 1 Enoch 15:8–16:1 describes how they became known as evil spirits on the Earth:

“Now the giants, who have been born of spirit and of flesh, shall be called upon earth evil spirits, and on earth shall be their habitation. Evil spirits shall proceed from their flesh because they were created from above; from the holy Watchers was their beginning and primary foundation. Evil spirits shall they be upon earth, and the spirits of the wicked shall they be called. The habitation of the spirits of heaven shall be in heaven; but upon earth shall be the habitation of terrestrial spirits, who are born on earth.[45] (See Appendix 1 Demons).

The Flood ended Satan’s worldwide Nephilim plan, but it would not end his plan for eternal world-domination. We will see that he would modify his plan with an ancient rebel named Nimrod.


[1] E. A. Myers (11 February 2010). The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 66–. ISBN 978-0-521-51887-1.

[2] Palestine Exploration Fund, 1869-1936. London, Pg. 426 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p010211321&view=1up&seq=418

[3] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1903-0422-1

[4] WARREN PEFQS I [1869/1870] 210-215) and an inscription is dedicated tou theou megistou k(ai) hagiou, “to the greatest and holy god”. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (Boston, 1999).: Hermon

[5] E. A. Myers (11 February 2010). The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 66–. ISBN 978-0-521-51887-1.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, 1–36; 81–108, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

[8] E. A. Myers (11 February 2010). The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Cambridge University Press. Pg. 65–. ISBN 978-0-521-51887-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

[9] κατὰ κέλευσιν θεοῦ OGI = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, Leipzig 1903-5. (Liddel Scott Jones)

[10] BDAG Μεγιστώ

[11] BDAG: ὀμνύω

[12] ἐντεῦθεν adv. pert. to extension from a source near the speaker, from here (En 22:13; Jos., Bell. 6, 299; 7, 22) Lk 4:9; 13:31; J 7:3; 14:31; 1 Cl 53:2 (Ex 32:7). ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐ. take these things away from here J 2:16. κατάβηθι ἐ. go home from here GJs 4:2. ἐντεῦθεν (for ἔνθεν) ἐκεῖ fr. here to there Mt 17:20 v.l. ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν fr. here and fr. there = on each side (c Num 22:24) J 19:18. For this ἐντεῦθεν κ. ἐκεῖθεν Rv 22:2; ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐ. my kingdom is not from here=ἐκ. τ. κόσμου τούτου J 18:36.

[13] http://www.greekalphabeta.com/learn-about-beta-b-2.html, definitions culled from LSJ.

[14] Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (Boston, 1999): Bashan.

[15] Molech, New World Encyclopedia https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Moloch

[16] http://www.altosalentorivieradeitrulli.it/nuova_pagina_17.htm

[17] http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Messapian%20language/en-en/

[18] http://www.altosalentorivieradeitrulli.it/nuova_pagina_17.htm

[19] https://journals.openedition.org/pallas/2208

[20] Splendor of the Magna Graecia art, the Zeus of Ugento … from the great Messapian city of Ozan (today’s Ugento)…530 BC. …the cult for Zis Batàs, https://www.salentoacolory.it/museo-archeologico-taranto/

[21] Ce sanctuaire, fréquenté depuis la fin du viiie s. a.C. jusqu’au début du iiie s. P.C., est consacré à Zis Batas, divinité indigène appelée Zeus Batios par les Grecs, puis Juppiter Optimus Maximus Batius (ou Vatius) par les Romains. Les cultes de l’Adriatique méridionale à l’époque républicaine Jean-Luc Lamboley. Pg. 133-141, https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/6837.

[22] https://books.openedition.org/efr/5584#illustrations; see also https://books.openedition.org/ausonius/6837

[23] Les Dieux Olympiens Et La Mer Annick Fenet pg. 83-138. https://books.openedition.org/efr/5584#illustrations

[24] Lomas, Kathryn. “Crossing Boundaries: The Inscribed Votives of Southeast Italy.” Pallas, no. 86 (2011): 311-29. Accessed October 19, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43606696.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Original French: La double dénomination de Palaistiné et d’Ourania souligne le caractère sémitique et oriental.” https://books.openedition.org/efr/5584#illustrations

[27]Paolo M Gensini University of Perugia, Italy , Physics, Emeritus, Personal correspondence, Aug 16th, 2020.

[28] Private email communication with Professor Amar Annus Mon, Sep 28, 2020. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_(cuneiform)

[29] Frans Wiggermann, Nergal, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (RlA) 9 1999 Pg. 215-226.

[30] The cuneiform bad, bat, be, etc. sign is a common multi-use sign in the mid-14th-century BC Amarna letters, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the Epic it also has 5 Sumerogram uses (capital letter (majuscule)). From Giorgio Buccellati (Buccellati 1979) ‘comparative graphemic analysis’ (about 360 cuneiform signs, nos. 1 through no. 598E), of 5 categories of letters, the usage numbers of the bad sign are as follows: Old Babylonian Royal letters (71), OB non-Royal letters (392), Mari letters (2108), Amarna letters (334), Ugarit letters (39). The following linguistic elements are used for the bad sign in the 12 chapter (Tablets I-Tablet XII) Epic of Gilgamesh: Sumerograms: BE, IDIM, TIL, ÚŠ, ZIZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(cuneiform)#:~:text=The%20cuneiform%20bad%2C%20bat%2C%20be,(capital%20letter%20(majuscule)).

[31] Frans Wiggermann, Nergal, Reallexikon der Assyriologie (RlA) 9 1999 Pg. 215-226.

[32] Amar Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, State Archives of Assyria Studies, Volume XIV Helsinki 2002. Pg. 178

[33] Ibid.

[34] https://aratta.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/the-snake-and-the-serpopard/

[35] Cole, S. W. (1996). The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

[36] Burkert notes: “In oral instruction, however, something such as HAR was most unlikely to have been pronounced … But even here a curious coincidence cannot be ruled out … Skeptics could draw the conclusion that the whole thing was nonsense; the historian, however, finds the clearest evidence of cultural diffusion precisely in correspondences of details that seem most absurd and unnatural, hence least likely to be arrived at independently. The Etruscan disciplina … has preserved more of its eastern origins. The similarities are nevertheless indicative of a common source, of some historical connection which binds all the individual forms together.” The Orientalizing Revolution, Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age By Walter Burkert · 1995, Pg. Pg. 50. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/cIiUL7dWqNIC?hl=en&gbpv=0

[37] Private email communication with Professor Amar Annus October 5, 2020.

[38] https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1903-0422-1

[39] “It stretched from the border of Gilead in the South to the slopes of Hermon in the North.” ISBE. See also (Deut 3:8)

[40] Charlesworth

[41] For example [כִּתִּ֖ים] Kittim is rendered κιτιοι (Kitioi) and Dodanim [דֹדָנִֽים] is rendered ροδιοι (interestingly the scribe most likely mistook the Hebrew dalet [ד] for a resh [ר] and hence it is rodioi. (Gen 10:4)

[42] Clay, Albert T. “The Origin and Real Name of NIN-IB.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 28 (1907): 135-44. Accessed September 11, 2020.

[43] “BATANAEA (Βαταναία), a district to the NE. of Palestine… It was added to the kingdom of Herod the Great by Augustus.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0064%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DB%3Aentry+group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dbatanaea-geo

[44] https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/678054/batanaia

[45] 1 Enoch 15:8-16:1.

Why Did Fallen Angels Need a Nephilim Solution?

Chapter 6: Fallen Angels Crave a Habitat & Chapter 7: The Nephilim Solution from Corrupting the Image 2

Satan and the fallen losing their original glorious-fiery covering, may have driven their efforts to make Nephilim. We know that God covers Himself with light as with a garment (Ps 104:2). God took the fire out the midst (from inside) of his anointed cherub (who was fiery per Ezek 1:13). God brought fire out from the midst (from inside) of Satan, which means he lost his source of power and connection to God and the glory that covered him.

“You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities, By the iniquity of your slandering; Therefore I brought fire from your midst, it devoured you [וָֽאוֹצִא־ אֵ֤שׁ מִתּֽוֹכְךָ֙ הִ֣יא אֲכָלַ֔תְךָ vaotzi esh mitochecha hi achalatcha] (Ezek 28:18).

Satan and the fallen angels have been left without their original covering, leaving them spiritually naked and with an incredible craving to be covered. The fallen ones’ condition is analogous to Adam and Eve being left naked and possibly experiencing hunger for the first time. (See Appendix 1 Demons).

Jesus gives us some insights into the barren and restless feeling a demon experiences when cast out and how he desires to return to the body he possessed:

“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. “Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation” (Matt 12:43–45).

Apparently, there is great discomfort in being uncovered and not inhabiting a living being. Separated from an earthly body, the demon goes “through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none.” Overcome with this gnawing distress, the demon decides it is better to go back to his “house” and possess it once more. We find the same root οἰκητήριον, meaning “habitation” used to speak of the angels that did not keep their “abode / habitation” in Jude 1:6. Paul gives us more insight on the idea of a spirit needing a habitation:

For we know that if our earthly house [οικια], this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation [οἰκητήριον] which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked (2 Cor 5:1–3).

Paul compares not having a body (just a soul) to being naked. This is interesting in light of the souls under the altar in Rev 6 of whom we are told, “A white robe was given to each of them” (Rev 6:11). Because they were comforted with a robe, we infer that they were “naked” before. They were in the presence of God, and yet being without a body was a lesser experience than having a body. Right now we occupy “tents”, but in the age to come we will have a new, heavenly habitation like the angels (Luke 20:36).

The Demoniac

Though Satan must still have some kind of body, it is not the habitation of glory and splendor that it once was. His body must have lost not only beauty, but also ability, which we infer from the fact that Satan is ironically looking to transfer his power, throne and great authority to a human. The one who wanted all to serve him must rely upon humans, whom he perceives to be lowly and inferior, to succeed. We also glean this from the encounter with the demoniac.

And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains, because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and in the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones. When he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped Him. And he cried out with a loud voice and said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God that You do not torment me.” For He said to him, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” Then He asked him, “What is your name?” And he answered, saying, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” Also he begged Him earnestly that He would not send them out of the country. Now a large herd of swine was feeding there near the mountains. So all the demons begged Him, saying, “Send us to the swine, that we may enter them.” And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea (Mark 5:2–13).

There are several important aspects to consider:

  1. The man had super-human strength to even break chains due to the demons possessing him.
  2. He lived among the tombs and cried out.
  3. He cut himself with stones. Blood is generally released when we cut ourselves. The demons may have feasted on the letting of blood.
  4. When Jesus showed up, the demons recognized one stronger than themselves.
  5. The demons begged to not leave the country.
  6. They preferred to enter (same word as possess) pigs rather than leave the country.

Satan Entered Judas

Short of having an adequate body to inhabit, Satan has had to work through a willing agent. We see this clearly in the Gospels where Satan possessed Judas to carry out his machinations.

Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot … (Luke 22:3). So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them (Luke 22:4).

Because only Satan entered, Judas was able to carry on conversations and behave in quite a normal manner, unlike the demoniac who was filled with a legion (4,000-6,000) of demons. Yet like the demoniac, Judas must have gained significantly more strength, a keener faculty of mind, and a sense of invincibility. Satan likely possessed Judas because the task before him: destroying the One prophesied to stomp on his head, which was both important and personal! That was probably Satan’s version of: “If you want a job done right, you do it yourself.” Satan possessed Judas a second time. “Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him (John 13:27). We know that Judas killed himself after betraying Jesus (Acts 1:18) in the valley of Hinnom. Incidentally, the final battle will take place in this vicinity.

It must have been a bother to Satan that just when he found a willing agent whom he could possess, the agent either got cold feet or died. Alexander the Great may also have been one of Satan’s chosen earthly representatives who also died prematurely. Robin Lane Fox, Traveling Heroes in the Epic Age of Homer, comments on Alexander as the son of Zeus (who was also Satan):

“‘Zeus’, Alexander was later thought to have said, ‘is the common father of men, but he makes the best peculiarly his own’; like many Roman emperors after him, Alexander was coming to believe that he was protected by a god as his own divine ‘companion’… as son of god, a belief which fitted convincingly with his own Homeric outlook, in whose favorite Iliad sons of Zeus still fought and died beneath their heavenly father’s eye”[1]

Though Alexander conquered the world and may indeed have had Satan (Zeus) as his divine companion, he still died at the young age of 33. If Satan had intended to use Alexander for establishing his empire, his plan was foiled by illness.

Hence, Satan was frequently in need of a new partner. These partners were unreliable, so Satan decided that it would be far better to have his own vessel in which he could incarnate and interact in this world. He would have complete, unbridled control.

Demons Hunger for Blood

In addition to being spiritually naked and craving a physical habitation, Satan and his fallen have a power problem; they were unplugged from the power source and have been running on “batteries” ever since. They need to devour something to “recharge their batteries”, but not physical things; thus, they were left with a sizeable problem: they had been stripped of their beauty and disconnected from the source of life, leaving them weak and hungry. Therefore, they have an insatiable craving to consume as stated by Peter: “The devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet 5:8).

Let us first consider how we recharge our human batteries. Adam and Eve lost their connection to God, the source of power, yet man can simply take of the produce of the adamáh: vegetables, fruit, grains, and even animals to recharge our “batteries” until, of course, physical death overtakes us.

But what can Satan and his angels consume to placate the ravenous void[2] inside them? They are not made of dirt; they are spirit beings. They therefore need to consume something of a spiritual nature—That something is what God said not to eat: blood.

”For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood’” (Lev 17:12).

The blood of a creature is more than merely hemoglobin; it has a spiritual capacity. The animal subject of a sacrifice (korban [קרבּן]) is the object which permits the worshipper to come near​ to God.

“‘When any one of you brings [brings near יַקְרִ֥יב] an offering [קָרְבָּ֖ן korban] to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of the livestock–of the herd and of the flock (Lev 1:2).

Atonement is a Covering or Batteries “R” Us

Satan has twisted the mechanism God established to temporarily connect with man; God wants to be with us, but with the state of our current bodies, his fiery presence does not allow us to be face to face. Therefore, the blood of the sacrifice is able to make atonement [כּפר kafar] (a covering) so the worshipper can come near God. Without a “covering”, we cannot approach God; the blood makes atonement. 

However, atonement is not a moral issue, since even the altar is something for which atonement was needed.

“And you shall offer a bull every day as a sin offering for atonement. You shall cleanse the altar when you make atonement (Kafar) “Seven days you shall make atonement (Kafar) for the altar and sanctify it (Exod 29:37).

The altar never did anything wrong. It was morally perfect and unblemished, yet it needed to be atoned for. This shows that “covering” is the true underlying meaning. Yet why would an altar need a covering? Simple, because it would come in contact with God Almighty, a consuming fire. We have seen that Mt. Sinai was on fire when God came down. Therefore, the altar would need a covering so it would not burn and be consumed.

Then he poured the blood at the base of the altar, thereby sanctifying it as a means to make atonement (Kafar) with it (Lev 8:15; See also Lev 16:18)​.

The priest would then take the blood of that animal and sprinkle it to cover the worshipers so they could safely be in proximity to God. It is important to note: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins (Heb 10:4). However, the purpose was not to take away the people’s sins, but to provide a covering.

An illustration is found in the life of David Vetter, better known as the Boy in the Bubble, whose immune system was so weak he could not have physical contact with the outside world or even with his parents. As seen in Figure 20 (next page), his plastic bubble habitation provided a covering to protect him from the world. It did not take away his sickness, but it did allow him to be close to his parents. So too, the atonement by the blood of an animal provided a covering until a future date when we will get our new bodies which can once again endure God’s fiery presence.

David Vetter, The Boy in the Bubble.

Therefore, Satan’s food is the life force, the blood; in other words, he feeds on us. People that have gone deep into Satanism talk about the energy the demons receive from the blood of their victims. Thus, with every human sacrifice, every abortion, every war, and every murder, Satan and his kin are recharging their batteries. The more innocent the blood, the more energy is derived. We see the sacrifice of innocent children in Psalm 106 and Ezekiel 16 and many other passages:

They served their idols, Which became a snare to them.They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons,And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood(Ps 106:36–38).

… and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them(Ezek 16:36).

This principle was brought out vividly in the 1999 dystopian movie, “The Matrix”, in which machines have enslaved mankind and are using the energy extracted from their bodies to power themselves. The people are the batteries that power the machines. In order to derive the most power from their human batteries, the machines had to create a deceptive Matrix, a virtual (computerized) dream world in which everyone believed they were living out real lives. In a similar fashion, Satan must deceive the entire world (Rev 12:9) and entice us to lust. He has offered us heaven on earth, like a carrot dangled in front of a donkey, as above so below, in order to recharge his batteries and maintain control of the world.

The Nephilim Solution

After the Fall, Satan and those who joined him lost their power and fiery covering and were trapped behind the veil, thereby limiting their influence in the realm of men. To combat this limitation, Satan enacted a plan: He would create human-angel hybrids which would provide them their very own biological suits for their embodiment and incarnation, to be the earthly habitations in which their spirits could dwell and rest without the need to share with fickle humans. It would be the best of both worlds—all the power, intelligence and immortality of angels with a biological “tent” for their spirits to inhabit, making them gods in the flesh. The bodies would be created as human-angel hybrids, but the bodies would be void of a spirit and could therefore be inhabited by a fallen angel.

Of course, part of Satan’s genius has been that he gets others to do his dirty work. He would seduce the sons of God to mate with women and when they got caught, they would take the hit. We know that God had entrusted the angels with earth-based jobs from our discussion of Satan being stationed in the Garden of Eden in chapter 4. There you recall that that he “defiled his sanctuaries” (Ezek 28:18) which means that he was not faithful with the sacred space God had placed in his hands. We catch a few glimpses of the assignment angels had from Deuteronomy and Daniel.

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly (Deut 32:8 NET).

There is a Qumran fragment of this text that reads: According to the “sons of God.” The Septuagint reads ἀγγέλων θεού (angelōn theou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (benei el) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (benei elim).[3] The idea of angels being over nations is clearly established in Daniel 10.  We see an angel who was bringing Daniel a prophecy was opposed and delayed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and also that Daniel would have to go and do battle with the prince of Greece, both of whom were fallen angels over their territories. (See Appendix 1 Demons).

Not Yet Fallen

While we know ultimately from Revelation 12 that one-third of the angels followed Satan, we do not know how many followed him right out of the gate. What we do know is that the “sons of God” did something so evil in the days of Noah that God would eventually send a flood to erase it all. It is entirely possible that many of the angels who followed Satan chose that path in the time around and before the Flood.

Genesis 6 only tells us what they did, not whether they were bad before this action.

When men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (Gen 6:1–4).

Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, unequivocally confirms the “giants were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women.”[4] There are clues that suggest these angels had not yet committed iniquity; hence they were not yet fallen.

Peter gives his interpretation of what happened in Genesis 6. He says, “The spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:19), who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet 3:20). These spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah when they procreated with women, which landed them in prison. In Peter’s second epistle, he elaborates on the event:

“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell [tartarosas] and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment, and if he did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah … [and] turned to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when he condemned them to destruction, … and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority” (2 Pet 2:4–10 NET).

Notice that he speaks of the angels who were disobedient and sinned in the days of Noah. From this, we infer that they had not sinned previously, meaning they were, up until that moment, on God’s team. Jude gives a similar interpretation; and based on the context, it sounds like the angels had not yet joined Satan’s team.

For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe (Jude 1:4–5) (Emphasis mine).

Jude’s point here is that certain men had the opportunity to come to God and to enjoy his goodness and blessings; but instead, they took advantage of his grace and mercy and turned to sexual deviancy. Jude then immediately turns to discuss the angels from Noah’s day because they did the same thing.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain but left their own abode [οἰκητήριον], He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day, as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 1:6–7).

This shift strongly implies that these angels had not converted to Satan’s team beforehand. That is, these particular angels who mated with women were not previously in league with Satan; Mating with women was their inauguration into his kingdom. Referring to the angels who heeded the temptation, the book of Jude explains how they “did not keep within their proper domain [arkhen]” (Jude 1:5a). That means they did not remain in the spiritual realm where they were authorized to be, “but abandoned their own place of residence [oiketerion]” (Jude 1:5). We considered the word oiketerion in a previous chapter and saw it referred to a spiritual body. We believers desire to put off our “tent” (our earthly bodies) and be clothed with our “oiketerion” (our “spiritual” bodies) (2 Cor 5:2).

When the angels came down to take the women, they quite likely were still good angels. Yes, they had evil plans in their hearts—but at that moment, they had not actualized their scheme.

It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children (1 Enoch 7:1-2)(Emphasis Mine).

Above in bold it reads, “angel, the sons of heaven,” but in an Aramaic text of 1 Enoch, the same passage reads: “Watchers,”[5] which is significant because the only place Watchers (עִירִין֙ irin) is used in Scripture is in Daniel 4:17, where Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and the Watchers (holy ones) tell him that he will be judged. The Watchers in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are clearly on God’s team. They are called “holy ones” and they intend for him to know that the Most High, the God of Daniel, rules men. Thus, in Enoch, the simplest reading is that watchers / angels / sons of heaven were not yet on Satan’s team, but were in the process of changing sides.

Good Angels Can Manifest

By persuading angels who are still on God’s team to procreate, Satan solved a logistics problem. Fallen angels appear to be limited in their ability to freely enter this realm, whereas the good angels can come and go at will. (See Appendix 2 Angel Freewill).

For example, in Genesis 18, God and two angels showed up at Abraham’s door, hence they were definitely good angels. After a while, the angels “turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD” (Gen 18:22). When they arrive in Sodom, the men of the city surrounded Lot’s house and demanded to have sexual relations with them! (Gen 19:5). Thus, the good angels were able to come into the physical domain; they had bodies and the potential on a physical level to defile themselves, (not that they were in any way tempted). We are even told to entertain strangers as we might be entertaining angels unwittingly (Heb 13:2), which implies the good angels can manifest physically, at will.

In Scripture, we never see fallen angels, on the other hand, materialize physically in our realm. Their lack of physical manifestation in this realm appears to be due to their power problem; they need blood to energize themselves. When they have enough blood offered, like with an occultic event or séance, they seem to be more easily able to manifest into this realm. Thus, uncorrupted angels seem to have no limitations in this regard, whereas fallen angels can only come in at great expense. (See Appendix 1 Demons.)

Through slander of God’s good name, Satan undoubtedly could have used his unparalleled wisdom to turn the angels from serving God and man, to serving themselves. He may have caused good angels to defect using the model of Absalom, King David’s son, who would sit in the city gate and tell the people of Israel how he would bring justice if he were the judge and so, he turned the hearts of the people against King David (See 2 Sam 15:2–6).

In a similar fashion, Satan may have seduced the angels with words like: “God is the only one worthy of your service and Adam is not. If serving God requires you to serve Adam, who is made of dirt, do you truly want to serve God?” Perhaps he showed them how he had successfully rebelled against God’s “biased” kingdom and then enticed them with promises of how they would no longer need to serve man; they could instead become the masters, and man would become their servants! They would be worshipped as gods if they would mate with women and would create a race in their own image. We know Satan was the one who inspired this dastardly action from a text that was found on Mt. Hermon which we will examine in the next chapter.

The Soul – Preexistent, Created or Transmitted?

We need to further explore the idea of the abode oiketerion (spiritual body) which the angels abandoned. Those “angels who did not keep their proper domain but left their own abode [οἰκητήριον],” are guilty of doing two things: not keeping their domain, their place of authority, and leaving (abandoning) their proper spiritual body. The text implies that by procreating with women they left their own spirit-based body. If they left their own bodies, then where did they go? The implication is they transferred their essence (DNA information code) into bodies of the Nephilim. To get our minds around this, we need to consider the various models of the origin of the soul. Where does the soul of a newborn baby come from? Is it preexisting in heaven? Does God create it at the moment of conception? Or is it transmitted from the parents? We will examine each model and consider this question.

The preexistence model of the soul from the Platonic school of thought, holds that the soul existed before conception and birth. For example, Origen “believed that souls fell in their pre-bodily state and were imprisoned into flesh as a punishment.”[6] The Mormons also tend to follow this view. A variation on this theme is that the souls are with God waiting for a body to inhabit. This model seems very unlikely for regular human birth. In regard to our question of what kind of soul inhabited the Nephilim, if the preexistence model were accurate, then God would have intentionally sent the angels into the Nephilim.

The preexistence model fails because we know that the sons of Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek because they had “come from the loins of Abraham; for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (Heb 7:5, 10). In plain English, Levi was genetically in the testes of his grandfather Abraham when the tithes were paid to Melchizedek. This proves that he was not a soul waiting for a body. He was a seed—information ready to be passed down. This concept is easier for us to grasp in the age of genetics and information science, both of which were unfathomable to the ancients.

The creationist model of the soul holds that God creates each soul at the moment of conception. The reason this model fails is that under this theory, Jesus would not be spiritually related to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and King David, if each soul were created individually. This would also be true of the preexistence model.

The creationist model also does not explain the origin of the souls inhabiting the Nephilim bodies. Would God create evil beings who were so terrible that He would then destroy them in the Flood?

The last model is the transmission model of the soul. It teaches that the soul of a newborn comes from the parents—it is the immaterial information that is passed in the genes from parents to child. Think of the soul like sourdough bread. A pinch off the starter plus more flour and water is enough to keep the sourdough going for centuries.[7] Even recently, a bit of 4,500-year-old Egyptian yeast was revived and baked into delicious bread. So too, the information passed through the parents, plus nutrients and oxygen, forms the baby with the soul in it. Considering this genetically, human egg and sperm cells have only twenty-three individual (haploid) chromosomes. They combine during fertilization and equal the forty-six individual (diploid) chromosomes, which is the point at which a new human soul is transmitted from the parents.

If it takes two humans to form a new soul in the child, then supernatural being + human being would not yield a human soul. The transmission of the soul from parents to child would be broken because one of the parents is not human. We know this because though Jesus was related genetically to humanity, He was preexistent; He did not begin to exist at the incarnation—He is eternal and has always existed. Yet, the incarnation was the point at which the Godhead mingled seed (DNA, i.e. information) with humanity. We also discovered in Corrupting the Image 1, that “a son will inherit an identical copy of his father’s Y chromosome, and this copy is also essentially identical to the Y chromosomes carried by all his paternal forefathers” (Emphasis mine),[8] meaning that all men throughout time have had a copy of Adam’s Y chromosome.

Furthermore, Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas, in their article, “Why Y? The Y Chromosome In The Study Of Human Evolution, Migration, And Prehistory”, suggested that the Y chromosome may in fact be “a record of an event”[9]in the life of the man who passed on the current Y chromosome. [10] From there we concluded that Jesus did not have Adam’s Y chromosome and hence did not carry the defects or degeneration (sin), inherent in the copies of Adam’s Y chromosomes in every subsequent male descendent. Therefore, though the human soul is always transmitted from the mother and father to the child, in Jesus’ case, his spirit / soul (essence) must have been placed there. It was not transmitted because He is eternal. His soul / spirit did not originate from Mary and the Holy Spirit; He existed beforehand.

The Holy Spirit fused “the Jesus” gamete (spermatocyte) with Mary’s gamete (oocyte) (recall that a gamete contains DNA, which is stored information, a non-material entity). The fusion of the two gametes is when the incarnation (becoming flesh cf. John 1:14) occurred. At that point, Jesus’ divine information / soul became part of his DNA.

Therefore, it follows that the union of an angel and a human would have genetically created a physical body, but not necessarily a soul / spirit. The body would be a blank, an empty shell which could be filled with a spirit-being in need of a body. Jude says the angels “left their own abode (spiritual bodies).” They left them for the hybridized bodies we call Nephilim.

There is no technical reason that angels could not pass on their seed. They had the ability, but they did not have permission.

“But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”(Luke 20:35–36).

Resurrected people do not marry again because they do not die, because they are equal to the angels. We do not become angels, but our bodies will be similar, and we will be equal to the angels in their power and glory. The text says nothing about the angels’ ability to pass on seed.

What is inside of a seed? Information—a non-material entity. We understand non-material data because we send information in our emails, voicemails, etc.; there is no physical substance to that information. We can interact with it, but we cannot touch it. A seed contains all information needed to become a living thing. A pumpkin seed holds all of the information needed to create a pumpkin. Angels have information, just as we have information. Even God has information; “No one having been born again continues to sin, for the seed of God dwells in him” (1 John 3:9).

However, the obstacle is that angels were not authorized to pass on their seed. God allowed it, but He did not bless it. In fact, the fallen angels’ unrighteous action brought a curse of immense magnitude upon themselves and the world.

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (Gen 6:4).

The book of Giants, a grouping of Aramaic fragments found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, corroborates Genesis 6 by noting the corruption the angels wrought upon the Earth. The fragments have missing gaps, but they have been interpreted as:

2 [ . . . ] they defiled [ . . . ] 2[ . . . they begot] giants and monsters [ . . . ] 3[ . . . ] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted . . . ] 4[ . . . ] with its blood and by the hand of [ . . . ] 5[giant’s] which did not suffice for them and [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] and they were seeking to devour many [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] the monsters attacked it, (4Q531)(Emphasis mine).

We cannot help but notice how the angel’s corruption also led to the creation of monsters which further corrupted the Earth.

2[ . . . ] flesh [ . . . ] 3al[l . . . ] monsters [ . . . ] will be [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] they would arise [ . . . ] lacking in true knowledge [ . . . ] because [ . . . ] 5[ . . . ] the earth [grew corrupt . . . ] mighty [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] they were considering [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] from the angels upon [ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] in the end it will perish and die [ . . . ] 9[ . . . ] they caused great corruption in the [earth . . .] (4Q532 Col. 2, Frags. 1 – 6).

 The fallen angels would have earthly bodies that belonged to them, and that were not temporarily borrowed from humans, because the bodies would now carry angelic genetic information. Biologically, the bodies of the Nephilim would be human-angel hybrids, but the indwelling spirit would be one hundred percent angel-spirit. It is entirely plausible that they were called Nephilim, meaning fallen, because they were inhabited by fallen angels.

Satan and his demons would have biological suits to be the earthly avatars for their spirits to inhabit. They would not have to entice humans to invite them to possess their bodies. Yet, they would have fleshly bodies in which they had full control, and would seemingly be human gods.

The Oath

The angels realized that once they crossed the line, they could never return into God’s kingdom. Their taking “wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (Gen 6:2) would be the point of no return; there was no going back. Ever. The eternal nature of their decision may be why they took an oath as recorded on an inscription on Mt. Hermon, which we will examine in the next chapter, and in 1 Enoch:7–8:[11]

Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon Ardis,which is the top of mount Armon.8 That mountain therefore was called Armon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual execrations. [12]

Hermon (Armon) comes from āram which means “a ban for utter destruction, the compulsory dedication of something which impedes or resists God’s work, which is considered to be accursed before God.”[13]

It is called “Hermon” because the angels committed to a curse upon themselves if they should not continue with their plan, which is another indication that when they came down upon Hermon, they still had a lot to lose. They were not doing a Hail Mary at the end of the game; everything was on the line for them. In fact, Samyaza is concerned that he will do the dirty deed and the others will chicken out, leaving him high and dry.

3Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise; 4And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime. 5But they answered him and said; We all swear; 6And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking. 7Then they swore all together and all bound themselves by mutual execrations (1 Enoch 7:2–7)(Emphasis mine).

This ancient event has lived in the memory of mankind for millennia. It has been called Hermon (laid under a curse) since the earliest of times (See Deut 3:8; Josh 11:13). The area south, south-east of Mt. Hermon was known as Bashan, which means snake-dragon. The mountain and surrounding area were considered the abode of the gods, both heaven and hell simultaneously, and home of the Rephaim, King Og, and Enlil / Baal.

For the ‘Canaanites’ of Ugarit, the Bashan region, or a part of it, clearly represented ‘Hell’, the celestial and infernal abode of their deified dead kings, – Olympus and – Hades at the same time. It is possible that this localization of the Canaanite Hell is linked to the ancient tradition of the place as the ancestral home of their dynasty, the rpum. [14]

Satan quite likely gloated in his “perfect plan” coming together in the land of Bashan. After all, the seed of the Messiah would never be able to stomp on his head if the image-bearers of God were destroyed, and if they were recast in his image instead! Mankind would become the ultimate slave by yielding up their flesh for Satan’s team to perpetually inhabit. The fate of mankind would have been worse than The Matrix where, at least, man could live out a satisfying simulation in their minds. If Satan’s plan had not been interrupted, mankind would have become extinct and the image of God created in Adam would have been replaced with that of the fallen angels.

Satan and his comrades would have bodies to cover their nakedness and sooth their pain. The bodies of the Nephilim would derive their energy from the Earth. The demons would also obtain energy from the blood of the body itself, which we saw with the demoniac who was cutting himself, presumably to feast on his own blood. They would be able to live forever because if a Nephilim bodysuit died, the interloper would simply grow another, and then possess it anew. Thus, Satan would have overcome the limitations put on him by his Creator, making him the ultimate victor.


[1] Robin Lane Fox, Traveling Heroes in the Epic Age of Homer, Pg. 217; retrieved from: http://ancientheroes.net/blog/alexander-the-great-zeus-ammon

[2] Prov 27:20; 30:15-16; Hab 2:5; Luke 11:24

[3] See Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74.

[4] Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis part 4, note 92.

[5] J.T. Milik, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976], Pg. 167

[6] M Preus Eloquence and Ignorance in Augustine’s On the Nature and Origin of the Soul, 56

[7] https://sourdough.com/forum/oldest-starter

[8] Underhill, Peter A. “Y Chromosome. “ Genetics, 2003. Retrieved September 29, 2010 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406500290.html.

[9] Retrieved September 30, 2010 from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectra-pages/SciSpect-14-98.html Science Spectra Magazine Number 14, 1998.

[10] Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas Why Y? The Y Chromosome in the Study of Human Evolution, Migration and Prehistory. See also http://www.ramsdale.org/dna13.htm.

[11] Though Enoch may have written portions of 1Enoch, as a whole, it lacks the divine stamp of divine to be Holy Scripture.

[12] Upon Ardis. Or, “in the days of Jared” R.H. Charles, ed. and trans., The Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893], Pg. 63.

[13] TWOT 744 חָרַם (ḥāram) “ban, devote, destroy utterly.” Also related to an Ethiopic root, meaning “to forbid, prohibit, lay under a curse.”

[14] The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst (Boston, 1999). Pg. 161-162

Mark of the Beast Genetic Alteration Conference Jan 2-3, Monrovia CA

I will be speaking at the Mark of the Beast Genetic Alteration Conference Jan 2-3 in Monrovia CA. You can register at www.KingdomforJesus.com. I would love to see you there!

Conference Location Double Tree Hotel Monrovia

924 W Huntington Dr, Monrovia, CA 91016

Friday Jan 2 2015 7:00-9:30 PM

Saturday January 3rd, 2015 9:00 AM-9:30 PM

Screenshot_3

 

 

 

How Do Angels Reproduce?

A recent question from a visitor to the site:

1) If angels don’t need to reproduce and if they are only male angels, how did they reproduce with human females?nephilim_dvd

Does that mean that they have male reproductive organs, and if so, why? if they don’t need to reproduce in heaven.

It is true that we see only male angels ever mentioned in Scripture which leads us to conclude that there are no female counterparts. The answer to how they could have passed on their seed is found in several verses. First of all, we understand that they are able to alter their form, apparently at will. The popular term for that ability is shape-shifting.

And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. (2Cor 11:14 NKJV)

In 2 Corinthians 5:2 the word (oiketerion) is a word that is used for our future (celestial) bodies.

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, (2Cor 5:2 NKJV)

The same word is used in conjunction with the angels that sinned by taking women in Genesis 6:Lastly we know from Jude 1:6 that there were some angels that “did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode [oiketerion], He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 1:6 NKJV)

 

Therefore, we understand that it is possible for angels and fallen angels to transform themselves from their spirit bodies into some kind of terrestrial bodies.

The other issue, which I describe in great detail in my book, Corrupting the Image how “seed” is not defined by the “hardware” but by the “software” that is, the information contained in the seed. Because seed/DNA is a non-material entity, then there is no problem for something from the spiritual realm to take on form in the terrestrial realm.

 

Rise of the Nephilim, Anakim, Emim, Zamzummim, (Giants from the Ancient World) Video

currupting_book

In the days of Noah and afterward, fallen angels fathered hybrid creatures called  Nephilim. The genetic mingling of demonic and human could not be tolerated in the days of Noah or when the Israelites came into Canaan. God spoke of giants whose height was like cedar trees, Moses spoke of King Og who was fifteen feet tall! The mystery of the Nephilim is the key to unlock Jesus’ phrase “as it was in the days of Noah, so the coming of the Son of Man will be.”

Sons of Seth or Fallen Angels?

The notion that Genesis 6 ‘sons of God’ is a reference to ‘the sons of Seth’ is surprisingly popular despite the fact that the Bible is replete with evidence that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 were fallen angels (demons) and despite the fact that all of the ancient Jewish and Ante-Nicene Christian commentators believed the “sons of God” to be referring to demons (fallen angels).

Augustine of Hippo

The first, as far as we can see, to definitively deny the sons of God as being angels was Augustine of Hippo of the fifth century, approximately seventy five years after the drafting of the Nicene Creed. Augustine did much to spiritualize the history of the Bible and twist a simple straightforward reading of the Bible. His method of Bible interpretation made a profound impact and his legacy remains even to this day. Many centuries after Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Catholic Church in the 13th century, quotes in his magnum opus, Summa Theologica, from Augustine’s work City of God (De Civ. Dei xv) concerning the sons of Seth:

Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. [i] Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge. Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man, [ii] (emphasis mine).

The Irish Giant 12′ Tall. Son of Seth or Nephilim?

Just as Augustine fallaciously suggested the sons of God were the so called “godly line of Seth,” the daughters of men have been labeled as being from the “ungodly line of Cain”. Augustine says, “By the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain,” (Augustine as quoted in Summa Theologica, Aquinas). We must ask the important question – where in Scripture does it say such a thing? Augustine makes the claim above that Scripture designates those daughters as coming from the race of Cain, but just where do we see that? The answer is that we simply do not. It was first tentatively considered by Julius Africanus and then completely invented by Augustine and then repeated by all who would follow in his footsteps ever since. If the term “sons of God” refers to the “sons of Seth” as so many suggest, then why does the text not simply state it? Unfortunately neither Augustine nor Aquinas substantiates the claim. They simply presume their statement to be true and offer no biblical proof. Augustine states that “Scripture designates” that the daughters of men “sprang from the race of Cain”. But where in Scripture does it say that? Sadly, their unbiblical assertion has left its mark in the modern day creating a great deal of confusion regarding what the Bible literally teaches.

Calvin’s Interpretation

John Calvin in the 17th century carried on the tradition started by Augustine that the sons of God are in fact the sons of Seth. He states in his commentary:

The principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of God, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate, (emphasis mine). [iii]

Calvin rightly describes the world as being wicked, but he vainly asserts that the world had been “divided into two parts.” Where do we see such an idea in the Bible? He also introduces his deterministic philosophy of predestination by stating that apparently the sons of Seth were adopted by “special privilege.” His denial of who the sons of God truly were creates a tremendous amount of confusion that has clouded the interpretation of the text for potentially millions of people over the centuries. Furthermore, nowhere do we see that the daughters of men are from the so called ungodly line of Cain.

Calvin continues with his unbiblical prohibition of inter-class marriages. Notice that again he does not offer any biblical support for any of his positions. He does not seek to prove his point with Scripture but with opinion and conjecture. Having simply asserted his position, Calvin then ridicules the ‘sons of God as demons [m1] ‘ interpretation.

That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition, (Calvin Commentary Genesis 6:1 emphasis mine).

We have already seen how “sons of God” is used in Scripture – furthermore that there were no human “sons of God” before the resurrection of Jesus. However Calvin introduces great confusion into the text by dogmatically declaring that God’s terms are very capricious and that they sometimes mean one thing in one context and quite another someplace else. The simple biblical definition, as we have seen, is that sons of God are direct creations of God. Calvin is unable to define sons of God because of bad exegesis.

Should anyone object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of Godsometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and though in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters, (emphasis mine). [iv]

Now, to support his presuppositions, he must explain away the giants (Nephilim) that are introduced in Genesis 6:4 and are the result of the sons of God (or as he would say the sons of Seth) and the daughters of men (or as he would say the daughters of Cain).

Moses does not indeed say, that they were of extraordinary stature, but only that they were robust. Elsewhere, I acknowledge, the same word denotes vastness of stature, which was formidable to those

Goliath was a Nephilim

Goliath was a Nephilim

who explored the land of Canaan, (Jos 13:33.) But Moses does not distinguish those of whom he speaks in this place, from other men, so much by the size of their bodies, as by their robberies and their lust of dominion, (emphasis mine). [v]

He downplays the fact that the fruit of the union between the sons of God and daughters of men were men of extraordinary size. He simply asserts that they were “great” in their evil. His interpretation is unfounded and he is not completely honest here for the word (Nephilim) used in both places is exactly the same. Calvin and numerous others turn to Genesis 4:26 in order to substantiate their case. Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary is very typical of those that leap to the conclusion that sons of God must be referring to the Sons of Seth.

Observe the different expressions: sons of God, and daughters of men. If you turn to Gen 4:26 you there discover that the children of Seth are said to call on the name of the Lord; including both sons and daughters; and hence, therefore, these are meant by the sons of God. [vi]

They suggest that this passage in some way proves that the term “sons of God” is really a hidden meaning for sons of Seth. Let’s take a look at the passage to see if their claims are valid.

Seth and His Sons

Seth appears a total of seven times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (NKJV). We get a brief glimpse of his life by stringing together all of the passages [vii] that speak of him.

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth […], and as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD, (Genesis 4:25-26).
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died. (Genesis 5:3-4, 6-8).

Here 130 years after creation, Adam has a son named Seth; then 105 years after that Seth had a son named Enosh. Thus we learn that a total of 235 years after creation men began to call upon the name of the Lord. The Hebrew term for Lord is YHWH which is the personal name of God. God told Moses: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El Shaddai שַׁדָּ֑י אֵ֣ל], but by My name LORD [YHWH יְהוָה] I was not known to them,” (Exodus 6:3). Thus to think that this was the first time that humans began to worship the Lord is unfounded. Rather we simply read that they began to use his personal name at that point for some purpose. While it appears to have begun with a son of Seth, we should not infer that it was limited to that line. After all, the Hebrew text very literally says az hukhal likro beshem YHWH [בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהוָֽה לִקְרֹ֖א הוּחַ֔ל אָ֣ז] “then was begun (the) calling by (with, in) the name YHWH” (translation mine). The term hukhal (הוּחַל) is the passive (hophal) of begin. The subject of the verb hukhal is “calling” (likro’ לִקְרֹא). The word “men” does not even appear in the text. Thus we see that apparently, up until that point, men were not invoking God by His proper name. It could be that they didn’t know it, though we cannot be sure. Nevertheless this reading of the verse does not in any way substantiate the notion that Seth’s sons were the sons of God. Another reading is possible which may clarify the passage.

A Possible Translation

Conversely, the verb hukhal (הוּחַל) comes from the root (חלל) the basic meaning is “to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin” according to Brown Driver Briggs’ [viii] Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, the alternative reading would be “then calling by the name of YHWH was profaned”. This alternative reading actually finds endorsement by the ancient Aramaic Targumim. Targum Onkelos interprets the passage as:

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then in his days the sons of men desisted [חָלוּ] (or forbore) from praying in the name of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Onkelos, emphasis mine).

Targum Jonathan is similar though it amplifies that reading even more:

And to Sheth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. That was the generation in whose days they began to err [למטעי], and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord, (Genesis 4:26, Targum Jonathan, emphasis mine).

While neither “began” nor “profane” supports the sons of Seth theory, the latter would seem to make more sense in light of the entire story of the Bible. The divine name seems to have been known from the very beginning of creation. Adam was familiar with it because he heard the voice of the LORD (YHWH) God in the garden after he had sinned. Calling by the name of the Lord was until that time respected and honored but it was in the days of Enosh when calling by the name of the Lord was defiled. God then destroyed the world because of the continual wickedness. Noah retains knowledge of the name and then apparently at the tower of Babel the name is forgotten or lost. God chooses not to reveal His name again until Moses has the encounter at the burning bush.

The Sons of Seth Were Not Sons of God

Regardless of which reading we take, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the concept that Genesis 4:26 can be used to interpret the sons of God as the sons of Seth. There is no indication that Seth’s sons were somehow more godly than the rest of humanity. Furthermore, it must not be missed that Adam lived another 800 years after begetting Seth and that he had sons and daughters. Likewise “Seth lived eight hundred and seven years and had sons and daughters,” (Genesis 5:7). All of the sons and daughters of Seth as well as the sons and daughters of Cain were in fact sons (and daughters) of Adam. Technically speaking every human ever born on this planet is a son or daughter of Adam; the Hebrew language uses the term to mean “human”. Thus the text is driving home the point that there are two dissimilar groups: the daughters of Adam on the one hand and the sons of God on the other. To suggest that the daughters of men were actually the daughters of Cain is fanciful. Rather, the daughters of Adam are contrasted with the sons of God: the daughters of men were human and the sons of God were not.

Furthermore, we can in no way infer that all of these sons and daughters remained so godly that they would be distinguished from the sons of Cain. After all, only eight people were saved out of the entire world. These sons of Seth must not have been so godly after all. Simply put, the sons of God do not refer to the lineage of Seth, but to direct creations of God, which before the redeeming work of Christ was limited to Adam himself and to angels. Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis six refers to fallen angels who had relations with human women.

Get the book Corrupting the Image. Read More Articles HereDouglas Hamp Ministries DVD Covers


[viii] Brown Driver Briggs (BDB) Hebrew English Lexicon provides the following definition. The most common definition is “1. to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin”. BDB then goes on to give the various forms of how the root is used in each of the binyanim (verbal paradigms). In the a. (Niphal) it means to: 1. to profane oneself, defile oneself, pollute oneself; b. ritually; c. sexually; 1. to be polluted, be defiled; d. (Piel): 1. to profane, make common, defile, pollute; 2. to violate the honour of, dishonour; 3. to violate (a covenant); 4. to treat as common; e. (Pual) to profane (name of God); f. (Hiphil): 1. to let be profaned; 2. to begin; g. (Hophal) to be begun”(emphasis mine). The Hophal is simply the passive of the Hiphil – therefore, if the Hiphil occasionally means to let be profaned then the one occurrence of the Hophal might also be translated as profaned rather than begin.

Rise of the Nephilim, Anakim, Emim, Zamzummim, Giants from the Ancient World (Video)

In the days of Noah and afterward, fallen angels fathered hybrid creatures called Nephilim. The genetic mingling of demonic and human could not be tolerated in the days of Noah or when the Israelites came into Canaan. God spoke of giants whose height was like cedar trees, Moses spoke of King Og who was fifteen feet tall! The mystery of the Nephilim is the key to unlock Jesus’ phrase “as it was in the days of Noah, so the coming of the Son of Man will be.”

Read paper here

Get book here

Angeli First Six Corrupting Thumbnail