To me it's quite clear who the Nephilim are. Where people take a wrong turn is by not referring to the original Hebrew in Gen 6. The identity of their fathers is uniformly translated as "sons of God", but this is read incorrectly in two ways.
Firstly, the singular word "God" is actually the plural Hebrew word "Elohim". It's a very long story, but the Elohim are without doubt one and the same as the Anunnaki. I find it impossible to believe that the mistranslation is anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead us.
Secondly, everyone thinks "sons of" is referring to offspring, but this is no more than a literary expression. We know that "daughters of men" means simply human women. Even in contemporary English, no one thinks a "son of the South" has for a father several states in the southeastern US. So "bene ha'Elohim" means simply "men of the Anunnaki race".
This is all cemented by a clear understanding of the term "Nephilim" itself. It comes from the Hebrew "naphal", meaning "to fall", so it means something like "The Fallen". (Note: these are NOT the Fallen Angels, but both groups "fell".)
I don't know which of these or all of these gained them their name, but these hybrid being had "fallen" in three ways. First genetically, as they were not of pure blood. Second socially, as they were not members of Anunnaki social structure. Third physically, as they were not space-faring but confined to the Earth.
"Nephilim" is often translated as "giants", and they were indeed physical giants. It turns out giantism is a phenomenon in some genetic hybrids, like ligers for example.
More interesting and most provocative is that if you dig deeply enough, you'll find that the term was originally translated as "earthborn". But hang on, isn't everything everywhere everywhen that we know of born on Earth? So here we find the term originating where, given the scenario we're building, it would have made a difference for the first time.
One last item because I can see that they touch on it in the podcast: how could aliens or angels have interbred with humans? Well, if you just say they're angels then anything is possible. But then why do they need to bang earth girls? Or bang at all? If they're aliens, WTH are the chances they're genetically compatible? We can't bang chimps and get humanzees.
It's another very long story, but the Anunnaki created us by genetic engineering, combining their DNA with (probably) homo erectus. So we're genetically compatible because we are already partly Anunnaki.
It's a lot to take in, but all I can say is that for me, anyway, it all holds together better and is ultimately a lot simpler than the other research out there.
Thanks for the link to the podcast. I'll check it out!
You know, I actually see it mostly in terms of efficiency, rather than how "esoteric" it is. You can't even imagine how much material I feel I can skip over simply because, having had a peek at the answer key, I can quickly spot where others are running off the trail and exactly why.
Like, suppose you wanted to learn about chemistry. Would you start with the oldest writings on the subject and work your way forward? Of course not. You'd just get hold of a first-year introductory college chemistry textbook and try to get a basic grasp on that. Then you'd find that probably 99% of everything that has ever been written about chemistry throughout history was incorrect, irrelevant, misleading, or superseded, and could safely be ignored.
I'm basically a very lazy person. Maybe it's my superpower.
If you want to learn about Chemistry or a hard science, maybe. But if you wanted to know about literature (how to develop a plot/character) or poetry, you'd dust off the complete works of Shakespeare. You'd know more about human nature reading Shakespeare than most modern psychologists. Likewise, you'd learn more about politics reading Plato's The Republic than you would most Poli Sci 101 books.
Actually, I think you've hit on one of the reasons why I've been able to penetrate farther than others. Almost all researchers consider works like the Bible or Greek mythology or Sumerian epics to be literature or religion, and study them on those bases. In stark contrast, I consider them to be history, wrapped in a literary cloth and dipped in religion. The goal is to remove that covering to find the truth of the events. Almost no one has this mindset, which I believe is crucial.
That is to say, to me the Bible is like a history textbook, and jokers have drawn all over it for centuries.
To me it's quite clear who the Nephilim are. Where people take a wrong turn is by not referring to the original Hebrew in Gen 6. The identity of their fathers is uniformly translated as "sons of God", but this is read incorrectly in two ways.
Firstly, the singular word "God" is actually the plural Hebrew word "Elohim". It's a very long story, but the Elohim are without doubt one and the same as the Anunnaki. I find it impossible to believe that the mistranslation is anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead us.
Secondly, everyone thinks "sons of" is referring to offspring, but this is no more than a literary expression. We know that "daughters of men" means simply human women. Even in contemporary English, no one thinks a "son of the South" has for a father several states in the southeastern US. So "bene ha'Elohim" means simply "men of the Anunnaki race".
This is all cemented by a clear understanding of the term "Nephilim" itself. It comes from the Hebrew "naphal", meaning "to fall", so it means something like "The Fallen". (Note: these are NOT the Fallen Angels, but both groups "fell".)
I don't know which of these or all of these gained them their name, but these hybrid being had "fallen" in three ways. First genetically, as they were not of pure blood. Second socially, as they were not members of Anunnaki social structure. Third physically, as they were not space-faring but confined to the Earth.
"Nephilim" is often translated as "giants", and they were indeed physical giants. It turns out giantism is a phenomenon in some genetic hybrids, like ligers for example.
More interesting and most provocative is that if you dig deeply enough, you'll find that the term was originally translated as "earthborn". But hang on, isn't everything everywhere everywhen that we know of born on Earth? So here we find the term originating where, given the scenario we're building, it would have made a difference for the first time.
One last item because I can see that they touch on it in the podcast: how could aliens or angels have interbred with humans? Well, if you just say they're angels then anything is possible. But then why do they need to bang earth girls? Or bang at all? If they're aliens, WTH are the chances they're genetically compatible? We can't bang chimps and get humanzees.
It's another very long story, but the Anunnaki created us by genetic engineering, combining their DNA with (probably) homo erectus. So we're genetically compatible because we are already partly Anunnaki.
It's a lot to take in, but all I can say is that for me, anyway, it all holds together better and is ultimately a lot simpler than the other research out there.
Thanks for the link to the podcast. I'll check it out!
Interesting, thanks for sharing. It's admittedly two steps deeper into the rabbit hole than I'd usually go on this subject.
You know, I actually see it mostly in terms of efficiency, rather than how "esoteric" it is. You can't even imagine how much material I feel I can skip over simply because, having had a peek at the answer key, I can quickly spot where others are running off the trail and exactly why.
Like, suppose you wanted to learn about chemistry. Would you start with the oldest writings on the subject and work your way forward? Of course not. You'd just get hold of a first-year introductory college chemistry textbook and try to get a basic grasp on that. Then you'd find that probably 99% of everything that has ever been written about chemistry throughout history was incorrect, irrelevant, misleading, or superseded, and could safely be ignored.
I'm basically a very lazy person. Maybe it's my superpower.
If you want to learn about Chemistry or a hard science, maybe. But if you wanted to know about literature (how to develop a plot/character) or poetry, you'd dust off the complete works of Shakespeare. You'd know more about human nature reading Shakespeare than most modern psychologists. Likewise, you'd learn more about politics reading Plato's The Republic than you would most Poli Sci 101 books.
Actually, I think you've hit on one of the reasons why I've been able to penetrate farther than others. Almost all researchers consider works like the Bible or Greek mythology or Sumerian epics to be literature or religion, and study them on those bases. In stark contrast, I consider them to be history, wrapped in a literary cloth and dipped in religion. The goal is to remove that covering to find the truth of the events. Almost no one has this mindset, which I believe is crucial.
That is to say, to me the Bible is like a history textbook, and jokers have drawn all over it for centuries.