Visitors to UFO Religions
Follow on Twitter
Order The Facade!

I wasn’t sure where to post this piece of wackiness – here or at Paleobabble. This audience won (or lost) since the subject matter is so often associated with UFOs.

Something interesting popped in my blog reader this week from the Cryptomundo blog – a post by Craig Woolheater relaying a question from a Dr. Matthew Johnson. Dr. Johnson (uncertain of his field) wrote the following:

There are many theories circulating around in the Kingdom of Bigfootdom. The predominant theory is that the Bigfoot are descendants of “Gigantopithecus” which they have a fossil record for in China (i.e., Essentially, a partial jawbone and one tooth).

Another theory circulating around in the Kingdom of Bigfootdom is the idea that the Bigfoot are actually the “Nephilim” mentioned in the Old Testament. Allegedly, the “Nephilim” are supposed to be the offspring of Fallen Angels who mated with Female Humans. However, I might add that there are many other Biblical interpretations pertaining to who might be the parents of the “Nephilim” mentioned in the Old Testament.

HERE’S MY QUESTION AND I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO HEAR YOUR ANSWERS:

If the Bigfoot are really the “Nephilim” mentioned in the Old Testament (i.e., Children of Fallen Angels and Female Humans), wouldn’t that actually mean that all of God’s Angels are really Apes with wings in order to create a sentient-being who appears to be half-man and half-ape?

I’d like to answer Dr. Johnson’s question.

Yes, according to Gen 6:1-4, celestial beings (“sons of God” following the Hebrew phrasing) cohabited with human women before the flood. At least that is one reading of the passage (the most straightforward one). There are others, but we’ll stay here to answer your question.

Biblical Nephilim are certainly described as unusually tall (cp. Numbers 13:30-33; Deut 2:10-11) but they are never described as hairy or ape-like. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) has a word for “apes” or “monkeys” (qoph; plural = qophim; see 1 Kings 10:22; 2 Chron 9:21). Semitic scholars consider it a loanword from Egyptian. No passage in the Old Testament uses this word to label any of the giant (Nephilim) clans, of which there were several.

More succinctly, Nephilim were not Bigfoot (or is it Bigfeet?).

Ordinarily I’d consider this sort of topic too absurd even for this blog, but I know that this idea is out there. It’s totally bogus and void of any biblical support. Not only is this clear from the above, but members of the giant clans are also described as “people” (Hebrew, ʿam) in the Old Testament (Emim, Anakim – see Deut 2:10-11; Deut 9:2) and as “men” (Hebrew, ‘adam; see Arba in Josh 14:15). Since these verses collectively tell is that Arba was a man, and Arba was one of the Anakim, and the Anakim descended from the Nephilim, the Nephilim were not Bigfoot/Bigfeet. Both of these Hebrew terms are used hundreds of times in the Old Testament of human beings.

Let me add a brief word to the Christian UFO community, some of whom say things like the above, thereby giving Dr. Johnson pause:

Can we stop the madness now? This isn’t rocket science. Though I have one, you don’t need a PhD in Hebrew Bible to discover any of this. A Strong’s Concordance will do it for you.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

7 Responses to “Nephilim and Bigfoot: Can We Stop the Madness?”

  • Dimitrios Kavalieratos says:

    Well said. When are you going to go on Acceleration Radio and talk to LA about some of this stuff?

  • Robin Swope says:

    Kudos!

  • MSH says:

    I presume you mean Lynn Marzulli? I don’t plan to. We’re friends but I can’t see him wasting his air time by having me on to shoot this down. I don’t follow his work so I confess I don’t actually know for sure where he’s at on this. I’ve just seen the idea online before.

  • jetpacks says:

    your premise is that bigfoot is an ape or “monkey”.

    but all the evidence we have, sketchy though it might be, paints a picture of a creature that is more a large hairy man than an ape with non-ape feet that walks upright.

  • MSH says:

    no, my premise (which is demonstrably correct) is that this idea doesn’t match any of the biblical material about the nephilim – the texts on which the equation depends since “nephilim” is a biblical term / category. There is literally NOTHING in favor of this equation, so those who defend it ought to at least look at the texts they claim support it.

  • JD says:

    What about Esau, who is later introduced in Genesis.

    Genesis 25:25
    The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.

  • MSH says:

    so, hairy people are a different species of hominid? I’ll buy that for George “the Animal” Steele (dating myself there – yes, I was a WWF fan as a kid), but not Esau.

    Esau is always identified as a man. He also spoke and rode horses, and fathered other kids who aren’t described as hairy. Etc., etc.

Leave a Reply