Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Moses can't be an evil prince of Egypt during the Hebrew apostasy but the most evil creatures in all of human history can start heroes? And on a flippant "sorry [not sorry] if they don't represent 'your' [snicker] interpretation?" following a Pontius' "there's no way of knowing"? The way these are being handled is far from neutral: neutral was when they were human and able to be converted, but universally evil to begin with.

I'm out.

I'm not ok with Heroic Nephilim from a theological viewpoint.

Based on the context of Genesis and Numbers, I am VERY hesitant in having nephilim as a hero. There is more pointing towards their 'evil' traits than anything good.

Even if they were good, there are a lot of people who have voiced their opposition to making them heroes and since it isn't clear if they were good, I personally don't support the hero portion of the card.

I agree with Polarius. We had the debates about "demons cannot be redeemed", and "Magicians are evil." I don't see why there is an exception here. Harry Potter fans would argue the "heroic magicians" side, but still lose. I don't see why "heroic Nephilim" should be  treated differently. There is no historic context that portrays these beings as anything but evil.

The Nephilim in Hebrew means "giants" but in a more ambiguous sense.  It can refer to physical stature, position, or tyrant.  Genesis 6:4 scripture reads:

"There were giants [or Nephilim] 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." NKJV

Nephilim has been interpreted to mean "fallen," "fallen ones," or to "fall upon."  It is in a negative connotation.  When viewed within the context of that scripture, particularly verse 5 (below), it is clearly a negative connotation. 

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

The Nephilim were also mentioned in Numbers 13:33 when the spies observed the Anakim, which reads "There we saw the Nephilim (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”  The Israelite spies obviously knew of the Nephilim.  How did they know about THE Nephilim?  They most likely knew about the Nephilim from the days of Noah.  In every respect, these giants and other giants, throughout the scriptures, have all been associated with terror, death, and tyrannical behavior.  These are traits not associated with godly men. 

Some scholars have suggested that there also appears to be a reference to the Nephilim in the warriors sense in Ezekiel 32:27.  In the verses from 26 to 28, Ezekiel prophesies about how terror was spread by the "uncircumcised" (always a negative connotation within Biblical and Hebraic worldview), some of which were the "fallen warriors of old," which Ezekiel also said that these warriors also spread terror in the land of the living.  Within the entire context of these verses, it is all in a negative, evil way.

Fast forward to the book of Jude, who quotes extensively from the book of Enoch, which goes into a deep history about the Gen. 6 Nephilim (which clearly shows that they are fallen angels who impregnated earthly women, the offspring of which were these Nephilim who terrorized, killed, and ate people).

Revisiting Gen. 6:4, it states "those were the mighty men of old, men of renown."  It is widely believed and accepted by scholars that these "mighty men" (sometimes referred to as "heroes") were the descendants of the sons of God (which is widely accepted to mean fallen angels.  The sons of God were also referred to in Job 2 and are believed to be angels) who impregnated earthly women and bore the Nephilim.  Does this story sound familiar?  How about the titans in Greek mythology?  The gods impregnated earthly women who bore the titans, which were demigods and who terrorized mankind and were extremely violent.  To the Greeks, it could be said that these titans were "well known, powerful beings" and were "mighty warriors."  This is not to say, however, that such terminology is used in a positive way concerning them.  It is more of a fearful way of viewing them as powerful warriors.  This is the same connotation regarding the Nephilim, which the titan myth obviously derived from a true story in ancient history, which were the Nephilim (the Sumerians also had a similar story in their history).  Just because some translations use the word "heroes" instead of "mighty men" doesn't mean, in our 21st century minds, that these were "the good guys who saved the day" and were celebrated and loved by antediluvians.  In contrast, the people most likely feared them to the utmost.  These beings had such power and fear among people that a name was made among them, which was obviously known in the ancient world as those powerful warriors. 

Within every historical context the Nephilim have been viewed as negative and/or evil, NOT as good guys.  It is very important to not view the Nephilim as "heroes" in the sense that we, as contemporary, westernized people view that word.  Think of it this way:  Note several historical military figures in history:  Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Cortez...they all were blood-thirsty men who brought terror everywhere they went.  However, they are also viewed by ancient and contemporary people as legends and respected as powerful and cunning warriors.  Same with the Nephilim.  They were terrible and violent beings, but were feared and maybe even respected by some due to their power. 

Kept within the context of true biblical heroes, and within the Redemption definition of what constitutes a biblical hero, the Nephilim clearly do not meet such a standard. 

First off, I don't think it's right to question Gabe/the elder team's sincerity as the original post did.

I think Polarius was questioning the presentation of the decision more than its sincerity. I would agree that the article's comment was flippant, and could even be interpreted as dismissive. The ensuing posts seem to indicate that the "your interpretation" side is more prevalent than anticipated.

"The Sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible.

The rationale for a non-heroic Nephilim is the common interpretation that the Nephilim are the off-spring of fallen angelic beings and humans. This is based off language seen in Genesis 6:2 where the Bible says the "sons of God" or in transliterated Hebrew "ben elohiym" which literally translates to the sons of God. The interpretation of this phrase is what the argument hinges on.

Interpretation of this topic is split among Christians and scholars. A large number of classic Christian interpreters would say that the nephilim are the offspring of an intermarriage of the godly line of seth and the evil line of Cain. Matthew Henry is a commentator who would take this interpretation. This view has serious problems.

To see these problems, let us return to "ben elohiym." This phrase occurs two times in the plural in the OT. (You see this Hebrew phrase in Daniel a time or two in reference to theophanies.) This appearance and in the first two chapters of Job. The Job appearance is how we must reach a conclusion based on this word.

In the book of Job, "ben elohiym" is used in reference to what could be a divine council of Angels. "The Sons of God" are those who present themselves before God and Satan is among them. This usage would surely imply that the Sons of God are among the divine order. Given that this usage (one of two major usages in the Bible) shows the sons of God as being among the divine order, we must be hermeneutically consistent and apply it to the Genesis passage as well. This makes the nephilim the offspring of humans and fallen angels.

Based on that conclusion, I would have to say good or neutral nephilim have no leg to stand on. I'm not going to quit the game or anything remotely close over this, but with all my training and research, I can't be ok with heroic nephilim.

Just to understand your points better, does the Job 2 references of the “sons of God” have to mean an angelic counsel? Could I not understand this just to mean humans presenting themselves before God? The Bible refers to us (humans) as sons of God more than it does angels right?

Just to make sure I'm clear on what people are saying--the controversial issue for those who are opposed to the card in its current form is not whether they are human or human/demon, but rather whether they should have a "good side" or not, is that accurate?

oh please... blue and red aren't good brigades 

Just to make sure I'm clear on what people are saying--the controversial issue for those who are opposed to the card in its current form is not whether they are human or human/demon, but rather whether they should have a "good side" or not, is that accurate?

At least for me, yes

Quote from: TheHobbit on March 27, 2018, 10:51:51 AM

oh please... blue and red aren't good brigades 

Calling it now--a Blue deck will finish Top 3 at Nationals this year. 

Without even knowing the rest of the cards I agree. Blue has already has a lot of potential in the current pool. If blue gets even a small boost of current power level support I think it will be competitive.

Please excuse the bold - it is not "yelling" - I'm just trying to separate my commentary from the Scripture so it's easier to read 

Humans and angels/demons are different - they cannot interbreed.

"But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another." - 1 Corinthians 15:38-40

God would never allow a half-demon/half-human to exist, because it would be impossible for them to either serve God as an angel or be saved as a human (because Jesus died for humanity - Adam, Eve, and their offspring).

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." - 1 Corinthians 15:41-50

In Heaven, the angels do not marry nor are given in marriage.

"And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”
Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." - Mark 12:18-25

Procreation is to be within the context of marriage, and one of the primary purposes of marriage is procreation, so it is logical to assume that the angels cannot procreate.

"And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth." - Malachi 2:13-15