Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 8, Fallen Angels and Giants

I think we have already established in multiple ways that Charles Weisman must have had some sort of agenda, because even though he admitted the truth of several of the fundamentals of what we call Two-Seedline, he nevertheless sought to dismiss it rather than to consider the elements which he himself admitted. For example, he had professed that the serpent must have been an intelligent being with its own order contrary to the order of God, but then he goes on to make suggestions that will ultimately lead to the conclusion that the devil is merely the flesh.

Doing this, he removed many scriptures from their proper context and used them as support for his arguments, even when those scriptures actually help to prove our Two-Seedline positions once they are fully and properly considered. For example, as we addressed pages 19 to 23 of his book, under the subtitle “The Serpent, Devil, and Satan”, we saw where Weisman failed to distinguish those words as they appear in each passage which he had provided as an example in their proper grammatical form. Then he proceeded to assert the notion that all evil emanates from God, and that is not true. As we examined his examples for that assertion, we saw that there are two types of evil, evil which is evil in the eyes of man as he suffers the consequences of or the punishments for his sin, and evil which is evil in the eyes of God, which is rebellion against God by man. God cannot be blamed for that later evil, because God is without sin. When men break the laws of God, men are the parties responsible for the resulting evil, and God cannot be blamed for the sins of men. Weisman’s failure to make this distinction is deceptive.

Weisman also insists that we profess Dualism, that we believe in a supernatural Satan co-equal to God, and that is not true. While the Scriptures would insist that we recognize spiritual demons, we do not believe that they are gods, as the ancient pagans had believed, and nothing in our Two-Seedline profession relies on any notion of Dualism. In fact, the ancient pagan belief that demons are gods is the basis for ancient paganism and was criticized in both Old Testament and New, for example in Deuteronomy chapter 32 and Colossians chapter 2. But rather, we believe in a race of so-called “angels” who rebelled from God and corrupted His Creation, the results of which we live with today, and our Satan is tangible: a race of men both naturally and forever opposed to God, who will all ultimately be destroyed by Him. We certainly can establish that throughout Scripture from beginning to end, from Genesis to the Revelation, and that is entirely consistent with the Gospel of Christ.

But as we have already asserted, and as we shall see here, Weisman does not even truly believe the Scriptures, at least, those Scriptures written after the Babylonian exile, and that makes him little more than a Jew, so here we continue where we left off under his subtitle “The Serpent, Devil, and Satan”:

Page 23:

The concept of a second god which caused evil in the world was primarily formed during the Exile (585-515 B.C.), being the result of Babylonian and Zoroastrian influence. Also appearing at this time was the notion that the serpent was a mystical, supernatural entity. The serpent as a deified entity with evil powers is related to “the Babylonian Tiamat, the destroyer of the works of the gods.” [Citing A New Standard Bible Dictionary, 3rd Edition, published by Funk & Wagnalls Co. in 1936.]

First, the Babylonian creation myth, also known in transliteration according to its original language as Enûma Eliš, was found in several fragments in both Assyria and Babylon, and in Old Babylonian in the ruins of the Assyrian library at Nineveh. Because of these circumstances, it can be dated to the Kassite period, from the 16th to 19th centuries BC, and is probably even older. It has parallels with Gilgamesh and the Code of Hammurabi which assist the dating, and in any event, it is indisputably much older than the Neo-Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the Babylonian exile of Judah in the early 6th century BC.

Secondly, Weisman admitted that the Satan of Job chapters 1 and 2 was a man walking up and down on the earth, an adversary of Job, and an adversary of God. With all three points we certainly agree. But Weisman never properly explained why that Satan, that man, was an adversary of God, and we can, but we will not make that digression presently. Rather, it shall suffice to say that there were beasts on the earth which were called goats, or satyrs, and the people were worshipping them, as we see in Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15, yet the Greeks used this same word to describe a sort of people, and not mere farm animals.

Thirdly, to think that all of the post-Exilic Scriptures, which would include Daniel, Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Nehemiah and Ezra, and then the entire New Testament were merely following “Babylonian and Zoroastrian influence” is to question the veracity of those books as the Word of God, and even the veracity of the Gospel of Christ. So how is Weisman not a Jew?

Finally, there were demons which were also worshipped as gods, as it is evident in Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 and Revelation 9:20. Yet demons could also bring false doctrines into churches, walk about seeking to devour men, and believe in God while being in fear of Him, as we see in 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 5:8 and James 2:19. Where the apostle John had warned in chapter 4 of his first epistle, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world”, we see that he was talking about embodied spirits, not disembodied spirits. So we would conclude, and we can support this with other Scriptures and Apocryphal writings, that there are disembodied demons in both Old and New Testaments, and there are embodied demons, or devils, in both Old and New Testaments. Every man is either a child of God, born from above, or a child of the devil, belonging to that group which had rebelled against God before the creation of Adam, and therefore born from below, in the Chaos of the serpent Tiamat, which his how the Babylonians had seen their own origins, being pagans. Weisman’s entire purpose is to hide that truth. Continuing with Weisman...

Page 23:

The existence of a supernatural god of evil is often derived from the New Testament; but its existence is mostly due to mistranslation or misinterpretation. The Pharisees apparently believed in a supernatural entity of evil (Matt. 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:5), but the idea came from their Babylonianized ancestors. Christians make much of satan as the “prince of the world,” but whatever this was, it has been judged and cast out of the world (John 12:31; 16:11).

First, not even Tiamat was necessarily seen as an embodiment of evil standing in opposition to a benevolent Creator God, in the way which Weisman presents this. Rather, Tiamat was perceived as a creator god, as creating the world out of chaos, and some of the gods created by Tiamat later rebelled against her and her husband, where the Old Babylonian and Assyrian god Marduk prevailed. So the legend of Tiamat does not correspond to the concept of Satan in Dualism.

Then Weisman cites Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22 and Luke 11:5, where he must have meant Luke 11:15, as all three passages refer to Beelzebub, whom the Pharisees considered to be the “prince [or ruler] of demons [or devils in the King James Version]”. For whatever reason the Pharisees believed that is immaterial. The god, or idol depending on one’s perspective, which is called Beelzebub appears in 2 Kings chapter 1 as the god of Ekron, a city of the Philistines, as Baalzebub at a time which was at least two hundred and sixty years before the Babylonian exile. Upon the death of his father Ahab, King Ahaziah of Israel had sent to Ekron to make an inquiry of Baalzebub, for which he was later punished by Yahweh the God of Israel. So Weisman’s entire example is irrelevant, and cannot be used to support his assertions.

That is because Beelzebub was known to Hebrews long before the Babylonian exile, and was certainly one of the entities of which Paul had spoken in 1 Corinthians 10:18-21 where he said in part: “18 Behold Israel after [according to] the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? … 20 But I say, that the things which the [Nations] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils [or demons]. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.”

As we have already shown, the existence of demons, spirit-devils, was recognized in the books of Moses in the Old Testament, and correlates with statements concerning demons in the New Testament. But whatever we want to think about demons, we do not claim that demons represent a supernatural Satan equivalent to and in competition with God, and we do not limit our concept of Satan to demons, since there is an earthly component which is much more dangerous, and that is Two-Seedline.

So now Weisman makes a straw man argument, if he made it regarding ourselves, but there are some old-time Two Seedline pastors, and probably still quite a few today who are guilty of his accusation:

Page 23:

Satanic Seedline proponents go to great lengths to get a supernatural being of evil into the picture, and consequently distort Scripture out of proportion in doing so. It goes without saying that if such an entity does not exist, the entire doctrine would naturally fall apart.

But of course, we would deny that there is a “supernatural being of evil” in the manner which Weisman claims, a Satan as equally powerful as God, a supernatural counterpart to God in the sense which Dualism proposes, yet our doctrine certainly does not fall apart.

Weisman continues and concludes this section of his chapter with an assertion based on another false premise which he had attempted to establish earlier:

Regardless of who or what the serpent of Genesis 3 is, it has been nullified by Christ. It thus cannot be said the serpent, even if it is some satanic entity, is an immortal, supernatural entity. So even though the words “devil” and “satan” have been applied to this serpent of Genesis 3, which is now destroyed, they are applied to many other things and persons as well. Thus these terms can and are still used, as is the term “serpent,” but they cannot be used in reference to the serpent of Genesis 3 still existing.

But the serpent has not been nullified by Christ, or it could not go off to make war with the remnant of the seed of the woman after the Christ-child was taken up into heaven, as it is described in Revelation chapter 12. So it is Weisman’s doctrines which fall apart, again and again and again, because once it is realized that the Serpent does have seed, and that seed is collectively the Serpent and Satan in later Scriptures, then we see how the Satanic entity endured throughout time, and how it can make war against the seed of the woman. So Weisman is not addressing that aspect of Two-Seedline as he attempts to prove that Two-Seedline is wrong. Yet we would never claim that Satan is immortal, or necessarily supernatural, although there are disembodied demons as well as embodied demons, which are so-called people.

Page 24:

While we are still in Chapter 3 of his book, titled “The Serpent”, Weisman now writes under the subtitle “Fallen Angels and Giants”:

The origin of the serpent of Genesis 3, according to Satanic Seedline advocates, is that it was originally an angel called Satan who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. Along with Satan was cast “one third of the angelic host which left their first estate” (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 12:4).

This is not according to “Satanic Seedline advocates”, but it is according to Revelation chapter 12, so we read: “ 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

Demonstrably, Revelation chapter 12 is a prophecy with several fulfillments, all from different aspects in the historical view of prophecy. But for our purposes here that is irrelevant. The Devil and Satan, words which are Substantives used to identify a particular entity, are also identified with “that old serpent”, which must be the serpent of Genesis chapter 3. Where Satan and the Devil are often referred to in the New Testament with a definite article, it is referring to this same entity, which is an individual but which also represents a collection of individuals, as any one of these so-called “fallen angels” can be referred to as The Devil or The Satan at any given time.

But now Weisman errs further where he makes another insistence which we do not make:

But how could a supernatural entity have sexual intercourse with Eve or any human female? Evidence of angelic beings having carnal relations with mortal persons is said to be found in Genesis 6:

“The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.” [Citing Genesis 6:2, 4.]

We would never say that the serpent, which is also Satan and the Devil, was a supernatural entity. Rather, angels appear to look just like men all throughout Scripture. But “heaven” does not necessarily mean “space” or the sky or the stars. Rather, in ancient inscriptions as well as sometimes in in Scripture, heaven is also used as an allegory for seats of government and authority, the pagan temples and the palaces of kings in the ancient world. One scholarly paper which discusses this topic at great length is Heaven On Earth, Temples, Ritual, and Cosmic Symbolism in the Ancient World, from a seminar at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.

So the angels did not necessarily fall from the sky, but may well have been a race of men on earth who rebelled against God. They are not necessarily supernatural, but had corrupted the Creation of God, and that is evident in Scripture and especially throughout the apocryphal Enoch literature, which certainly belonged in Scripture, in its ancient form, as the apostles themselves had cited Enoch. We cannot trust the Ethiopic Enoch, as it is demonstrably corrupt, but it does represent something which the apostles had cited, and which is also found in large portion in the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In the Enoch literature, what the King James Version has based on the Masoretic Text as “sons of God” is often expressed as “sons of heaven”, and the Alexandrian manuscript of the Septuagint has “angels”. As we have previously explained, if the race of the fallen angels which the serpent represents is also called the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” which Adam was commanded not to touch, and that being the only law given up to that point, Eve, Adam, and later their Genesis 6 offspring did indeed mingle sexually with that tree, then we see that there was indeed a law which they were punished for transgressing, or they could not have justly been punished, and we also see just how they had transgressed that law.

Before we say more we will continue with Weisman, where he cites four different denominational Christian sources:

Satanic Seedline proponents claim that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who cohabited with the fair daughters of Adamic man. Those who say this obviously believe that the satanic seedline was caused by not just one evil entity, satan, but by a whole race of such beings.

Here Weisman is very close to the identity of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but could not quite put his finger on it, but perhaps that was also intentional. So he continues:

Most authorities believe these verses are “interpreted as having no reference to angels at all, but as describing an intermarrying between two races of men.” [Citing The New Bible Commentary, edited by Prof. F. Davidson, 2nd edition.] Most Bible scholars identify these two people as the descendants Seth and of Cain:

The sons of God saw the daughters of men — By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. [Citing Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible,]

Notice that Weisman quotes as an authoritative source this reference which claims that Cain is rejected because he is “apostate”, then he continues:

The reference here [Gen. 6:2] is to the descendants of Seth. Prior to the flood, all the descendants of Seth were good. But when they began to marry the daughters of men; that is, the descendants of Cain, they forsook God and did evil in his presence. [Citing George Lamsa, Old Testament Light.]

… the daughters of men. Those that came of wicked parents, as of Kain [Cain]. [Citing “The Geneva Bible Translators”, The Geneva Bible, on Genesis 6:2.]

Now first, taking Weisman’s own point of view, how are the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth two different races of men? Weisman himself argued in respect to the “seed of the woman” that women did not have seed and that the family lines were always called after the men, so even if Cain married a pre-Adamic or non-Adamic wife, how are his children not of the race of Adam, as Seth’s children? So Weisman is a hypocrite, because his own opinions conflict with one another. In truth, calling the descendants of Cain a different race than the descendants of Seth is exactly what we believe, but it is only because Cain was not really the son of Adam, and was rather a bastard.

That being said, however, in Genesis chapter 15 the Kenites, or descendants of Cain, are distinguished from the Rephaim. The Emim, Anakim and Rephaim are all counted as Rephaim giants, but are all also described as Nephilim, the word translated giant in Genesis chapter 6 which actually means “fallen ones”. But the Kenites are never identified as Rephaim or Nephilim, and are therefore distinguished from these other groups. Even if they are sometimes mentioned together in the same area, they are distinguished and should not be confused with one another. The Anakim, Emim, Rephaim and others did not descend from Noah, and as it says in Genesis chapter 6, “4 There were giants in the earth in those days;” that statement must refer to an earlier time than where it continues and says “and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

So the giants were in the earth before the race-mixing event of Genesis chapter 6, and Weisman does not care to explain how or why they got there. In fact, later in this chapter he exposes himself as not even being able to read properly, because he did not realize it, or did not want to realize it. Then after the flood, giants, which are described as Nephilim and Rephaim, are still in the earth, and Weisman seems to think nothing of it, at least so far. These giants were always evil, were always the enemies of Israel, the Israelites were always in fear of them, and the giants were always accursed men to be destroyed. But they were never entirely destroyed.

I want to cite a portion of something which I have in my notes from Pragmatic Genesis, Part 8, from November of 2013, but the notes were never published with the podcast:

Of course, the Greek poets and the ancient Sumerian and Assyrian inscriptions are not canonical, however they lend insight into what pagan tales grew out of the accounts which are also represented in the Hebrew Bible.

In Hesiod’s, Theogony, from line 176, it is said that giants had sprung from the blood of Heaven. In fragments of the ancient Greek Epic Cycle, which dates to before the end of the 7th century BC, there is mention of an unknown author of a work called the “War of the Giants”. Another work called the “War of the Titans” is referenced. The word “titan” actually comes from a Greek word which refers to one who strives, or strains, or from another possible etymology, one who avenges. The titans were defeated by Zeus and banished to Tartaros, the original name for what became known as Hades. Peter uses a verb in his second epistle, ταρταρόω, which means literally “to cast down into Tartarus”. The earliest Greeks had a myth of a Titan named Ogygos who was said to be an ancient king of Boeotia, a tale often compared to the Biblical account of Og of Bashan. We also see names of giants containing two occurrences of the letter “g” in Akkadian epics, such as the name of the so-called “Igigi gods”.

In much earlier Sumerian and Akkadian myths, Gilgamesh and his rival-turned-companion Enkidu were both giants said to be created by the gods who descended from heaven. Gilgamesh and other giants ruled over the cities of Mesopotamia, just as they often do in the Hebrew Scriptures in Palestine. The Hebrews were familiar with these epics, as Gilgamesh is even mentioned twice in surviving Dead Sea Scrolls. In Gilgamesh, Tablet 11, we see a story of Utnapishtim, who was to build a ship of wood in order to preserve himself and his house from a flood. We believe that all of this may be seen as pagan innovations, elaborations and parallels of the same ancient accounts which are preserved in our Scriptures.

That is the end of my Pragmatic Genesis citation.

Instead of addressing all of these issues, Weisman only tries to disprove certain things that Two-Seedline teachers of the past have said, and he disregards everything else. In fact, he never really discusses the passages he cited in reference to “one third of the angelic host”, which are Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and Revelation 12:4. Apparently he also never realized that the “host of heaven” which the ancient children of Israel worshipped were not really just stars in the sky, but fallen angels, as the ancients named the planets and stars in honor of the demons they worshipped, and as Paul tells the Greeks in his epistle to the Colossians that they disgraced themselves in the worship of angels.

Attempting to shoot holes in Two-Seedline, Weisman answers nothing, and he himself leaves us a barrel full of holes. Even if the descendants of Cain were a different race than those of Seth, as he himself has admitted, then he does not even properly explain that! Where are the sons of a murderer or an apostate ever excluded from possibilities of mercy and repentance? Even David, and many of the kings of ancient Israel, were themselves murderers, but while some of them were cursed for their own behavior, Yahweh never excluded any of them from an opportunity for mercy and repentance. Why, if Cain and Seth were both of Adam, would a union of cousins be considered a sin, especially a sin of race-mixing? Weisman failed to address even the most obvious flaws in his own assertions.

In truth, it is being of mixed race which makes a man unacceptable, not religion. Paul warned the Corinthians not to commit fornication, to race-mix like the ancient Israelites had, for which they were punished, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. Yet in that same epistle, in chapter 7, Paul advised faithful wives to remain with unbelieving husbands, and faithful husbands to remain with unbelieving wives, and the children would be sanctified by their faithfulness. Unbelief, or apostasy, is not a reason for rejection. Esau’s progeny were rejected because he was a fornicator, a race-mixer, and one is either a son or a bastard, as Paul explained in Hebrews chapter 12.

PAGE 25:

Weisman continues with another straw man argument:

The notion that “sons of God” are fallen angels is said because the term for “God” is Elohim, which means gods (plural). But this term is used hundreds of times for God. There is diverse opinion on these verses. But it cannot be said for certain they are examples of angelic beings having sex with mortal persons. To claim the serpent of Genesis 3 is a fallen angel is speculation. To say such an entity had sexual relations with humans is even more speculation. To build a purported major doctrine of the Bible on such speculative premises is a dangerous thing. The argument for fallen angels in Genesis 6 also involves the meaning that is attached to the word “giants.”

But we do not claim that the term “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 refers to gods, rather than Yahweh. What we do claim is that in fragments of the Enoch literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls the term is “sons of Heaven” referring to the same event, as in some of the Alexandrian manuscripts of the Septuagint it is “angels”, so the phrase “sons of God” as it appears in the Masoretic Text is not certain. There is a paper I wrote at Christogenea on this subject, perhaps 15 or 16 years ago, titled The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4, which provides the relevant citations.

In any event, the “sons of God” and “daughters of men”, where the word for men is adam, are two different races, the event is sin, it is fornication, it results in severe punishment on the race of Adam, and the only law given to Adam up to that point is the same law which he himself had transgressed in Genesis chapter 3, which is not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Weisman, however, seems ignorant of all of this, and perhaps willfully so.

He continues:

The Hebrew word for giants is nephilim (#5303). It is claimed and that this word means fallen ones, indicating they were fallen angels who intermixed with human women.

Nephilim means “a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.” [Citing Strong’s Hebrew dictionary.] One who makes people or things fall is a “feller.” A lumberjack is a feller because he cuts down trees. The term thus does not describe those who have fallen, but those who cause others to fall. The nephilim could be any bully, tyrant, or giant which knocks people down. The term might also be used of those who would be “falling on, or attacking” others. [Citing Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, page 556.] The term nephilim is also used in Numbers 13:33, where it clearly refers to men or a people of Canaan.

Now Weisman does not explain the issue of race in relation to the events of Genesis chapter 6, or how a race of men could be fellers, bullies and tyrants. How are bullies and tyrants produces from race-mixing? Or worse, as Weisman had earlier in his book asserted that Cain was the son of Adam, from the marrying of cousins?

But here Weisman is being disingenuous once again, by conveniently leaving out a good portion of what Gesenius had actually said. He cites Gesenius’ definition, but he only cites a small part of it, so I am going to reproduce Gesenius’ entire definition of nephilim, without the Masoretic vowel points, and I will expand any abbreviations and add some helpful notes in brackets, because Weisman is also lying about that, at least by omission. With this I will also include both an excerpt and a full-page scan of page 556 from my own copy of his lexicon. So here is the Gesenius entry at 5303, nephilim:

נפיל [nephil] only in plural נפילים [nephilim] masculine giants, Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33. So all the ancient versions (Chaldaean נפילא [nephila] the giant in the sky, i.e. the constellation Orion, plural the greater constellations). The etymology of this word is uncertain. Some have compared [a certain Arabic word or words which we cannot read] which Gigg. and Cast. [unknown linguists or lexicographers, Gesenius supplied no table of abbreviations] render, great, large in body [referring to the Arabic words being compared to nephilim]; but this is incorrect; for it [the Arabic word or words] means, excellent, noble, skillful. [Now for the part Weisman ignored:] I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters [evidently the Jewish Masoretes] and Aquilla [who translated the Old Testament about 140 AD and rendered nephilim as ἐπιπίπτοντες (epipiptontes), commonly interpreted as those who fall on something] falling on, attacking, so that נפיל [nephil] is of intransitive signification. Those who used to interpret the passage in Genesis of the fall of angels, were accustomed to render נפילים [nephilim] fallers, rebels, apostates.

A verb can be described as transitive or intransitive based on whether it requires an object to express a complete thought or not. The true question is whether the original is active or passive, and in the actual ancient Hebrew the two are not distinguished.

Other commentators I have seen attempt to derive נפיל [nephil] from פלא [phela], to distinguish, or to be great or extraordinary (Strong’s # 6381) or something wonderful or admirable (Strong’s # 6381). This hardly describes the despised nephilim, or the reason why they were called by that name. An example of this is found in Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scripture.

According to Strong’s Hebrew lexicon, the primary meaning of the root word of nephil, נפל [naphal] is “to fall, lie, be cast down,” and it is therefore passive although it can also mean “to cause to fall”, however the Hebrew vowel points being added by later men, the only real way to distinguish the meaning is in the context. It is a real stretch even on the part of Gesenius to insist that the primary sense is “fellers”, meaning those who make others to fall.

Where in his definition for nephilim Gesenius said “I prefer the Hebrew interpreters”, meaning the Medieval Jewish Masoretes and rabbis, as opposed to “Those who used to interpret the passage in Genesis of the fall of angels” who therefore translated the word as fallers, for which we would write fallen ones, he is nevertheless admitting that our interpretation of the term is indeed legitimate, was once recognized by more than one interpreter, but that his preference was to go along with the Jews. That is not our preference.

Why did Weisman omit this portion of Gesenius’ definition, which show that our interpretation is legitimate? Instead he made an authoritative statement that nephilim means fellers, and cited Gesenius as support for that definition, but Gesenius said either definition was possible, that it could mean fallen ones, and it was only his preference to interpret it as fellers. So Weisman lied, and he lied purposely, and he made a purposeful decision to follow Gesenius, who agreed with the Jews. Purposely lying, how could Weisman not also be a Jew?

So even according to Gesenius, nephilim can mean fallen ones. For a host of reasons, we will interpret nephilim as fallen ones, but especially for the reason which Weisman refuses to see, where he continues and says:

Page 26:

Using the term nephilim (giants) to support the fallen angel concept is erroneous since these giants were only the product of the intermarriages. The giants were not the “sons of God.” Since the giants were the progeny or offspring of human females, they could not possibly be fallen angels. So any recourse to the term giants (nephilim) to claim that fallen angels had sex with human females is totally groundless.

Now, citing another mainstream Bible dictionary, he says:

“The statement of Genesis 6:4, taken simply and literally, informs the reader that such giants of old, mighty men of renown, were born of normal human marriages. In other words, they were not demonic beings. ‘Sons of God,’ here as often elsewhere, simply means human beings with special emphasis upon man’s nature as created in the image of God.” [Quoting The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, edited by Merrill C. Tenney.]

So if, according to Weisman, the descendants of Cain are the “sons of God” and that means they were in the image of God, and if the “daughters of Adam” were the descendants of Seth, and Seth is said in Genesis chapter 5 to have been in the image of Adam, and therefore of God, what is the problem? Where is the sin, sin so grievous from these unions that God chose to destroy the entire race of Adam except for Noah and his sons? Especially since Noah was “perfect in his generations”, which is a reference to his descent? If Cain and Seth are equals, there is no sin!

But the statement in Genesis 6:4 does not say what Weisman claims that it says. In the King James Version it reads: “4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

In the New American Standard Version it reads: “4 The Nephilim were 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.”

So there were already giants in the earth, before the sexual union of the Nephilim and the daughters of Adam, “and also afterward”, after those unions occurred. The giants were there in the beginning, and Weisman is either too stupid to read, or has misread the passage purposely in order to deceive his readers.

Furthermore, if these were “normal human marriages”, as the typically universalist Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary claims, why would Yahweh God wipe out the entire race of Adam, saving only Noah and his sons and their wives, because it was considered a grievous sin? Yet the Nephilim were not punished, but rather we read in the very next verse: “ 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [Adam] was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man [Adam] on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man [Adam] whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

The Nephilim were not punished, and neither were the Kenites, or children of Cain. The descendants of Adam were destroyed in a flood, and these other races appear again in Genesis chapters 14 and 15 as if nothing ever happened to them. Weisman denies the truth, and he does not even bother to sufficiently explain the consequences in Scripture from the perspective of the lies he uses as a substitute for the truth. He may not be stupid, if indeed he is doing this purposely, but he is stupid enough to think we are that stupid as to fall for his lies.

So he continues down that same path, because he is the one who is “straining” from the verses, if to strain something means to remove part of it, to separate things, Weisman removed the part which informed us that the giants were already in the earth, so that he does not have to explain how they got there:

To strain more from these verses than what is normally meant is not warranted by what is given in Scripture. Further, the angels who “sinned” (2 Pet. 2:4) or “left their first estate” (Jude 6), and other such references, would more likely mean humans who were once servants of God but turned to sin. The descriptions of these angels are not typical of immortal beings who cannot sin or become mortal. Further, the word for “angel” does not necessarily mean spiritual beings, but is also used for prophets (Isa. 42:19; Hag. 1:13; Mai. 3:1), priests (Mal. 2:7), church rulers (Rev. 1:20), or a messenger of God (Job 1:14; 1 Sam. 11:3).

Once again, Weisman proves our point, that the so-called “fallen angels” are people, but they are not Adamic people. They were once servants of God, and they did turn to sin. But they were called “fallen angels” in Scripture because they had preceded the race of Adam here on earth, however that is not revealed to us until the advent of Christ, as He professed in Matthew chapter 13 and Revelation chapter 12.

The Devil, the Satan, the Serpent, the Dragon, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all of these are allegories for that same race of ancient beings which rebelled from God and corrupted His Creation. So in relation to the historic people of God, who are descended from Adam, Jude also called them “certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation” but that can not be true of any of the children of Adam or of Israel. In that same way Peter spoke of them in his second epistle and said “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies”.

If all men are from Adam, who are the intruders? If these Nephilim were simply human, from where did they come that they would be intruders? And why would they be ordained to corrupt the assemblies of God “from of old”? Weisman answers none of this. He only wants his reader to accept his explanation, “Oh, they were people too”, and leave it at that without explaining the reason for the sin of Genesis 6.

This concludes Weisman’s third chapter, which ends at the bottom of page 26 of his book . In Chapter 4 Weisman discusses “The Role of Cain”.