5 ms·

And same. I believe there's also a theory that the neanderthals were smarter than our ancestors of the time. That would also fit the story. I can imagine the

And same. I believe there's also a theory that the neanderthals were smarter than our ancestors of the time. That would also fit the story. I can imagine the homo sapiens of the time interacting with the far stronger and smarter neanderthals and describing them as 'sons of god'. I wonder if that's also where the old Greek myths of Hercules (etc) came from.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
“Sons of god” is a translation of the Hebrew by non-Jews and is just plain incorrect. It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. But If you ask Jews, who wrote that section of the Bible, benei elokim translates as something like “those who are free”: “Who or what exactly are the benei elokim? Who are the nephilim? How are they related to each other? And what does it all mean? One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.”1 The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.2 Similarly, the term benei does not necessarily mean “sons,” but is often just a title. Benei chorin, for example, means those who are free—not “sons of freedom.” https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewis...
- generalizations 6y ago
  That was an interesting read. Thanks. I'm not sure how the linked article expresses more than an alternate translation, though. It says that benei doesn't "necessarily" translate to sons, which doesn't rule out the translation but merely suggests an alternative. The word elokim also refers generally to God, as it says, but can be translated differently. It's an interesting alternative, but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. > It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. I've never heard of that before. Not sure where you would have, or how it even does reenforce that idea.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    > how it even does reenforce that idea. It reinforces “Christ as the son of God” because, if the phrase is translated as “sons of God”, that sets a precedent in the Old Testament that God has sons. The Jews do not believe God has sons. Christians do. So it is in the best interest of Christian translators to translate that phrase as “sons of God”. > but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. No, I only provided one source (Chabad), but there are many others, including all Jewish translations of the Old Testament (Torah) from the original Hebrew to English. You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews.
    - tyfon 6y ago
      Now I am confused, maybe because I am not religious. But I have always been under the impression that the christians claim jesus is the only son of their god? Wouldn't other sons conflict with this and not reinforce it?
      - _Microft 6y ago
        Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than just God having a (or more than one) son: „The Christian doctrine of the Trinity […] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one ‚substance, essence or nature‘. In this context, a ‚nature‘ is what one is, whereas a ‚person‘ is who one is“, from [0] where you can also read a lot more about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
    - spijdar 6y ago
      > You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews. Do the 70 Jewish authors of the Septuagint not count? In the LXX, it clearly reads "οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ", "the sons of God". The LXX precedes Christianity by quite some time.
    - mcv 6y ago
- wl 6y ago
  The Jews who wrote Genesis aren't the Jews who wrote the Midrash. The culture from which the myths concerning the Nephilim and Benei Elokim arose had no problems with God having sons, e.g. Mot, Yam. The Jews of Elephantine are documented as having a temple to Anat, daughter of El (God) by his wife Asherah, in the 5th century BCE. The opposition to reading any of the Hebrew scriptures as referring to "Sons of god" likely arose as a reaction in Rabbinic Judaism to Christianity, both of which (along with Karaite Judaism) arose out of Second Temple Judaism.
stareatgoats 6y ago
AFAICT, the Greek pantheon (Hercules etc) is commonly assumed to belong to a religious belief system that in large part aligns with the spread of the Indo-European language, probably (maybe) originating with the Yamnaya culture on the Pontic steppe north of the Black sea according to what is called the Kurgan hypothesis [0][1]. The culture and language seems to have spread across large parts of the Indo-European landmass starting maybe 6000 years ago, eventually displacing many older European and Indian cultures respectively among others. It is assumed to be the reason that such disparate pantheons as the Roman, Greek, Norse and Hindu have many common characteristics. One reason for the relative swift and wide spread of the culture is currently speculated to be that the Yamnaya were the first to domesticate the horse and use them to pull wagons (chariots).[2] While it could be possible that the original pantheon referred to Neanderthals a more rational interpretation seems to me to be that the pantheon is a deified memory of some prominent people in a small group that roamed the plains of present Ukraine many thousands of years ago, a group that came to conquer other groups because of their advanced horsemanship, establishing traditions that in turn achieved a life of their own as traditions and beliefs commonly do. But hey, it is little more than speculation at this point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.h...
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Only a quite small number of the Greek pantheon have Indo-European forebears and were brought to Greece with the expansion of the Indo-European languages from the Pontic Steppes. Most of the Greek deities derive from the non-Indo-European autochthonous culture of Greece, or from interaction with the Greeks’ neighbors in Anatolian. Your own linked article emphasizes this: "Despite the popularity of Greek mythology in western culture, Greek mythology is generally seen as having little importance in comparative mythology due to the heavy influence of Pre-Greek and Near Eastern cultures, which overwhelms what little Indo-European material can be extracted from it."
  - 6y ago

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

“Sons of god” is a translation of the Hebrew by non-Jews and is just plain incorrect. It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. But If you ask Jews, who wrote that section of the Bible, benei elokim translates as something like “those who are free”: “Who or what exactly are the benei elokim? Who are the nephilim? How are they related to each other? And what does it all mean? One thing benei elokim does not mean is “sons of G‑d.” In fact, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would “curse” anyone who translated the term benei elokim as the “sons of G‑d.”1 The word elokim in Scripture, while generally referring to G‑d, is in essence merely an expression of authority.2 Similarly, the term benei does not necessarily mean “sons,” but is often just a title. Benei chorin, for example, means those who are free—not “sons of freedom.” https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewis...

generalizations 6y ago
That was an interesting read. Thanks. I'm not sure how the linked article expresses more than an alternate translation, though. It says that benei doesn't "necessarily" translate to sons, which doesn't rule out the translation but merely suggests an alternative. The word elokim also refers generally to God, as it says, but can be translated differently. It's an interesting alternative, but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. > It gets passed around as legit probably because it enforces the idea that Christ is a son of God. I've never heard of that before. Not sure where you would have, or how it even does reenforce that idea.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > how it even does reenforce that idea. It reinforces “Christ as the son of God” because, if the phrase is translated as “sons of God”, that sets a precedent in the Old Testament that God has sons. The Jews do not believe God has sons. Christians do. So it is in the best interest of Christian translators to translate that phrase as “sons of God”. > but the claim that the translation "sons of god" is specifically wrong only seems to be based on the declaration of a single earlier source. No, I only provided one source (Chabad), but there are many others, including all Jewish translations of the Old Testament (Torah) from the original Hebrew to English. You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews.
  - tyfon 6y ago
    Now I am confused, maybe because I am not religious. But I have always been under the impression that the christians claim jesus is the only son of their god? Wouldn't other sons conflict with this and not reinforce it?
    - _Microft 6y ago
      Well, actually it is a bit more complicated than just God having a (or more than one) son: „The Christian doctrine of the Trinity […] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one ‚substance, essence or nature‘. In this context, a ‚nature‘ is what one is, whereas a ‚person‘ is who one is“, from [0] where you can also read a lot more about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
  - spijdar 6y ago
    > You’ll never see it translated as “sons of God” in a book translated by Jews. Do the 70 Jewish authors of the Septuagint not count? In the LXX, it clearly reads "οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ", "the sons of God". The LXX precedes Christianity by quite some time.
  - mcv 6y ago
wl 6y ago
The Jews who wrote Genesis aren't the Jews who wrote the Midrash. The culture from which the myths concerning the Nephilim and Benei Elokim arose had no problems with God having sons, e.g. Mot, Yam. The Jews of Elephantine are documented as having a temple to Anat, daughter of El (God) by his wife Asherah, in the 5th century BCE. The opposition to reading any of the Hebrew scriptures as referring to "Sons of god" likely arose as a reaction in Rabbinic Judaism to Christianity, both of which (along with Karaite Judaism) arose out of Second Temple Judaism.

stareatgoats 6y ago

AFAICT, the Greek pantheon (Hercules etc) is commonly assumed to belong to a religious belief system that in large part aligns with the spread of the Indo-European language, probably (maybe) originating with the Yamnaya culture on the Pontic steppe north of the Black sea according to what is called the Kurgan hypothesis [0][1]. The culture and language seems to have spread across large parts of the Indo-European landmass starting maybe 6000 years ago, eventually displacing many older European and Indian cultures respectively among others. It is assumed to be the reason that such disparate pantheons as the Roman, Greek, Norse and Hindu have many common characteristics. One reason for the relative swift and wide spread of the culture is currently speculated to be that the Yamnaya were the first to domesticate the horse and use them to pull wagons (chariots).[2] While it could be possible that the original pantheon referred to Neanderthals a more rational interpretation seems to me to be that the pantheon is a deified memory of some prominent people in a small group that roamed the plains of present Ukraine many thousands of years ago, a group that came to conquer other groups because of their advanced horsemanship, establishing traditions that in turn achieved a life of their own as traditions and beliefs commonly do. But hey, it is little more than speculation at this point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180509185446.h...

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Only a quite small number of the Greek pantheon have Indo-European forebears and were brought to Greece with the expansion of the Indo-European languages from the Pontic Steppes. Most of the Greek deities derive from the non-Indo-European autochthonous culture of Greece, or from interaction with the Greeks’ neighbors in Anatolian. Your own linked article emphasizes this: "Despite the popularity of Greek mythology in western culture, Greek mythology is generally seen as having little importance in comparative mythology due to the heavy influence of Pre-Greek and Near Eastern cultures, which overwhelms what little Indo-European material can be extracted from it."
- 6y ago