I know that many of you are waiting for the next part of my review of Graham Robb’s Discovery of Middle Earth, but it’s a slow, dense read, and it’s going to take extra time for me to read far enough ahead for the next part—unless you really want a 15 part series, which I imagine would get old fairly fast. I hope to have the next part for tomorrow. You will, I trust, remember Doug Woodward, a Christian apologist who criticized me for criticizing the “Nephilim theorist community” over claims that sin is transmitted through deoxyribonucleic acid. Woodward contacted me privately to inform me that he would be publishing another rebuttal and asked me to refrain from criticizing it lest he feel compelled to respond in an infinite spiral of mutual criticism. For interested parties, Woodward’s re-rebuttal is here. Unbeknownst to me, my discussion of the Nephilim has apparently provoked discussion among Christian Nephilim theorists, with new criticism from Diana Learn that I am engaging in “scurrilous accusations.” She asks whether I can “fully understand the nuances of the alternative claims of Bible-believing Christians.” Learn agrees, however, that regardless of the factual arguments, all of our disagreements reduce to whether we believe Genesis to be inerrant. Both Woodward and Learn attribute to me naturalist, materialist, and atheist beliefs (religiously held beliefs, Woodward says), which they derive from the fact that I ask for evidence of the supernatural before endorsing its reality. Woodward, however, criticizes Learn for failure to endorse Christian supernaturalism as thoroughly as he would like. However, both Learn and Woodward would like me to correct the following errors, which I will relate with minimal comment:
With those corrections in the interest of fairness, I will now say a word about Woodward’s final objection, in which he took me to task for dismissing his claims of copper-armor giants without sufficient warrant, arguing that my “disdain” for his evidence was not proof of its failure. He’s right. He provided a citation to the story, claiming that eight armor-covered giants were found in Walkerton, Indiana in 1925, as reported in his book The Final Babylon (2013). Since this is a testable claim for the depth and persuasiveness of Woodward’s Nephilim research, it deserves careful and thorough treatment to show just how sloppy Nephilim scholarship is. Let’s dispense with the simplest part of the claim first. The photograph Woodward identifies as the “giant” burial from 1925 is almost certainly a modern photograph, as indicated by the black-and-white measuring reference seen in the photo, not exactly standard equipment for 1920s amateur diggers; he was probably confused by this website which uses it as an illustration and labels it an Adena burial. The photograph does not, as he asserts, depict copper armor. The story of the giants was first reported in the South Bend Tribune for October 4, 1925 under the headline “Skeleton in Armor Found in Indian Burial Mound.” Although I do not have access to this article, the story was then picked up and summarized by national media. Here is an original Time magazine report from November 16, 1925: At Walkerton, Ind., a farmer opened a mound, disclosed eight skeletons, one of them clad in copper armor, lying feet together like spokes in a wheel. A giant for stature had a flint arrow head embedded in his skull. The bones appeared to be of Mound Builders. The report says only one wore copper armor, most likely a copper breastplate like those known from ancient Native burials, and the report said nothing about the skeletons being nine feet tall. The media reports found nothing especially unusual about the size of the bones, which were in keeping with the slightly larger than average size for pre-Columbian Native peoples, who routinely were several inches to a foot taller than Europeans. The secretary of the Northern Indiana Historical Society investigated and reported the results in in the Indiana History Bulletin for 1926. No surprise, but there is no mention of “giants.” Carl Litchfield of Teegarden, and Jesse Lichtfield, who lives just north of Teegarden, recently excavated a mound on the farm of Grove Vosburg, some three miles north of Walkerton. The mound is reputed to be of great antiquity and this seems to be confirmed by the memory the owner of the farm has of an oak tree a yard in diameter formerly growing on top, which fell down about twenty years ago. The mound was at one time about twenty-five feet high but in recent years its height has been decreased. At a depth of about twelve feet, the Litchfields found eight skeletons in an arrangement somewhat like the spokes of a wheel with their heads toward the center. In the skull of one of the skeletons, said to be of large size, a fine flint arrow was embedded. With this same skeleton several plates of copper were found. The excavation also brought to light a number of other articles, bands, beads, etc., and two pipe bowls, one smooth, and the other elaborately carved. It wasn’t even armor! Just copper plates, like the artifacts known from the same period, particularly the Mississippian copper chest plates, many of which were elaborately shaped into bird-men motifs. The earlier Hopewell culture made use of similar copper plates, including large copper head plates for a headdress, which could resemble sheets of armor and were probably what were found in the mound in question. No one claimed the skeletons were supernatural, only that one skull was “large.” Even if it were unusually large, it is only one of eight. The artifacts buried with the skeletons are typical of the area’s native populations.
From these reports, the myth of “giants” emerged. By 1965, the Rosicrucian Digest had made them into “eight giants,” though recognizing that only one wore armor. As the story grew, the “eight giants” became “eight-foot giants,” almost as if the number of giants became confused with their size. Suddenly, they all started to sport armor. The key transformation took place with Jim Brandon’s Weird America (1978) where the skeletons were claimed to be giants and “all were wearing heavy copper armor.” Charles DeLoach in his Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend (1995), altered this, probably by mistake, to (in quotation marks) “substantial copper armor”—still a far cry from the “copper plates” associated with just one of them. From Weird America and from Giants, everyone from David Childress to Wayne May to Doug Woodward takes his information. And they all claim the giants and armor “disappeared,” with Childress suggesting a Smithsonian conspiracy. But there aren’t any giants or suits of armor to hide! None of these recycling authors went looking for normal-sized skeletons with typical Hopewell copper artifacts, which the original reports were very clear about. And thus the modern myth of eight armor-clad giants, recently identified as Nephilim. You’re welcome.
35 Comments
Clint Knapp
11/14/2013 06:41:23 am
Highly-indoctrinated Christian theologian I am not, but I could've sworn the point of the tale of Eve and the serpent was that women were the sinful ones who corrupted men. Eve ate the fruit first, at the behest of the serpent, and then convinced Adam to do it too.
Reply
11/14/2013 07:02:11 am
Great question. As I understand it, they argue that when Eve gave Adam the fruit, God altered his testicles to produce sin-carrying sperm. But I may be making this sound more coherent than the idea really is. You're right that on the surface, it seems to completely reject the traditional idea of Original Sin and the Fall.
Reply
Alix
11/14/2013 08:08:30 am
It seems to me like they've fallen into a trap I've seen before - they're starting from an assumption about Jesus (that he was born without sin), taking that very literally, and working backwards from it. If he was born without sin, which somehow they see as genetic, then Mary couldn't pass sin onto him. So since they seem weirdly averse to miraculous/supernatural explanations (esp. given that Jesus' birth is itself miraculous/supernatural), sin must get passed on in some way that Mary didn't get it. And so of course they jump to the Y chromosome, not realizing how badly that screws up their own mythology.
Reply
Varika
11/14/2013 12:53:10 pm
Women get sin when men touch them without washing their dirty Y-chromosome sin-philous hands.
Bob
7/28/2015 02:37:26 pm
In Varika's mind: Sin = Cooties
Mandalore
11/14/2013 07:09:45 am
These sorts of wild Christian literal interpretations are absolutely ridiculous. If one wishes to believe that Moses wrote the Torah, fine. I disagree, but whatever. Jubilees and Enoch, though, are clearly much later in date and were rejected as non-canonical for a reason. Regardless, some groups, certainly not limited to Christians, take religious texts far beyond any reasonable limits which only serves to undermine their own preconceived notions.
Reply
Clint Knapp
11/14/2013 08:10:30 am
You're right. I didn't mean to imply that Eve was sinful before she ate the fruit, only that the sin originated with her act of doing so and was subsequently passed on to Adam through her coercion. Which would seem to mean that if one really wanted to make the sin-DNA case it would be on the X chromosome passed through the mother and therefore wouldn't leave any confusion in the proponents of the theory as to how women, lacking a Y, would be sinful too... but hey, we're just bootstrapping this thing together anyway, so why not?
Reply
11/14/2013 07:27:28 am
Well, I *can* "understand "the nuances of the alternative claims of Bible-believing Christians" and do have the biblical studies credentials to render an opinion. This sin-DNA-nephilim connection described above by Ms. Learn and others is bunk. And the DNA-Jesus stuff in there is absurd. The ideas have no basis in any coherent sort of exegesis of the biblical text. Some of the other ideas are unfounded as well, but I don't want to digress here.
Reply
11/14/2013 09:27:35 am
Mike, since you are quick to agree that the Nephilim Theory doesn't hold water, any comment on the Virgin Birth? Do you have an opinion on the nature of how it happened?
Reply
11/14/2013 09:38:17 am
You were very courteous in the email and then less so in your posting. You told me that you felt any further critiques would be unproductive, and I agreed. I assumed you said that because you didn't want further critiques, and I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. I took it as your indication that it would not be useful to continue this. Therefore, I agreed and did not critique your rebuttal. Instead, I presented for my readers the points you felt I got wrong, and I then explained the interesting story of the "giants" you cited.
Mandalore
11/14/2013 11:23:49 am
One historical interpretation of the Virgin Birth is that it was a later creation by Christians who sought to understand the birth of their savior better. The canonical Gospels are generally dated by historians to between 60 and 100 (Mark, then Luke/Matthew, then John). There was little actual knowledge of the circumstance of Jesus' birth, but an important theological need to fulfill Jewish prophecy and give a divine birth. As such, Mark has no birth story, Matthew and Luke's stories are incompatible with one another, and John prefers a metaphysical (i.e. Greek) take on it. The birth stories fill a theological gap, which was further filled in by the Church Fathers (immaculate conception and so forth).
Israel is the Virgin. In the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verses 15 through 18, God promises to Moses that He will raise up a special prophet who will be born to the nation of Israel like he was. Presumably this widely anticipated prophet was Jesus Christ, and we are plainly told that it was, in the New Testament book of Acts at chapter 3 verse 22, where these very verses from Deuteronomy are quoted. It was known very early in Hebrew history that, a savior would come from among the brothers of Moses, that is, from the nation of Israel. It could be said that Moses and Jesus shared a mother, the nation of Israel, and as it turns out, she was known as "the Virgin." Since the prophets have often referred to the nation of Israel as "the Virgin," (notably at Amos 5:2, but also a few times by Jeremiah), it is arguable that no miracle of parthenogenesis was ever intended in the prophecy of the Emanuel at Isaiah 7:14, who was also born to "the Virgin," (not, incidentally, "a" virgin). It is not unusual for a nation, a city, a church, or a population, to be figuratively symbolized as a female character. Even modern nations, (without, presumably, resorting to idolatry), have similar traditions. The U.S.A. has it's "Columbia," the U.K. has "Britannia," and Rome had it's "Roma," all feminine personifications that are symbolic of each their own national spirit. The nation of Israel was also referred to as a "woman," and the "maiden," and the "virgin," she was known as Zion (or Jerusalem) and called the "bride," or "wife," of God.
Clint Knapp
11/14/2013 05:18:41 pm
Since you're here to defend your own claims, Mr. Woodward, and to ask others their opinion on certain aspects of it, would you mind elucidating your stance regarding my earlier questions? How exactly did the sin come to be a Y-trait if it was first committed by one who did not have a Y chromosome?
Natalina
11/14/2013 01:09:22 pm
With respect Dr. Heiser, I wonder if you've read Diana's original blog post? She really doesn't take a stance in the affirmative of the sin-DNA-nephilim connection, as you call it. The entire point of her blog post is urging everyone to be more clear in the theories that they put forth, so that other researchers can have a better understanding of what they're saying... and it is kind of directed at everyone. She presents the DNA argument as a point where more clarity is needed by those who present that theory as plausible, and makes it quite clear that she hasn't hitched her theological wagon to any of these theories. In fact, she was quite generous to Mr. Colavito. I'm not really sure why she's even brought up here, given the fact that, as she states in her essay, "“Nephilim Theory”, however, is not the subject of this post."
Reply
11/14/2013 01:15:26 pm
To be fair, Natalina, Heiser just said Learn described it, not that she endorsed it. Woodward and Mazulli are the two who advocate the idea.
Natalina
11/14/2013 01:19:29 pm
Fair enough Jason. That said, since hers was the only name mentioned in the comment, it merited clarification, which seems to be the word of the day, eh? :)
Diana Learn
11/14/2013 02:21:23 pm
I am just one of those crazy people that thinks words have meaning, to the point that I drive my husband crazy! But seriously, in order to have sane debate, shouldn't the positions of both sides be clearly and accurately stated? Wit and stinging, colorful language certainly has its place. Everyone loves a good read. But mis-characterization and skewed understanding just leads to a bunch of "I did not say that" banter and the actual ideas become secondary to a bunch of noise. Boring!
Thorne
11/15/2013 06:05:27 am
Diana Learn siad: "I further believe that it should be made very clear that anytime a theory runs COUNTER TO the Word of God, it must be abandoned. "
Diana
11/16/2013 02:41:16 am
Thorne,
Diana
11/16/2013 02:41:26 am
Thorne,
Clint Knapp
11/16/2013 06:13:55 am
Hold on now... The only reason modern science can still be said to have not found the "missing link" is due to the fact the "missing link" itself is an outmoded concept based on a static, pre-evolutionary world view built by deist concepts that every living thing is linked in a nice and orderly fashion. Asking modern science to find the "missing link" in human evolution is akin to asking them to point telescopes at the sky to find the physical embodiment of God as a man floating in space watching everyone. The concept itself is not science, it is belief to its very core.
Thorne
11/17/2013 01:49:42 am
Diana,
William
11/14/2013 10:41:30 am
I think that one function of religion is to help people deal with unanswerable questions we all have about "being."
Reply
Gary
11/14/2013 01:16:49 pm
If Moses wrote the Torah, then he wrote that he was the most humble person who ever lived. I have a t-shirt that says "I pride myself on my humility". Moses would have loved it.
Reply
Paul Cargile
11/14/2013 11:39:00 pm
The idea of genetically encoded sin implies no one is responsible for their actions and questions the concept of free will.
Reply
Jim
11/15/2013 01:33:17 am
It also means that sin can be objectively tested for and located in our genome. After it is identified then we should be able to eliminate sin from our genome as well. This would mean that man could absolve himself from original sin. I'm by no means a biblical scholar, but this line of thought appears to lead to heresy.
Reply
Jan
11/14/2013 11:50:34 pm
Many alternative history claims can be debunked easily when one knows something about archeology, or ancient/medieval weaponry and its evolution. Copper is a pretty horribly material for armour (with no real evidence for copper armour being ever used, even marginally) . The giants would've done much better if they just wore padded clothing, or leather stuffed with rags or dry grass.
Reply
Dave Lewis
11/15/2013 01:56:52 pm
I read Doug Woodward's rebuttal. He'd a nasty little person. He is an embarrassment to all Christians.
Reply
Peyton
7/26/2018 03:07:01 pm
Believe me, you aren't the only one annoyed by that.
Reply
Shane Sullivan
11/15/2013 03:26:48 pm
I don't even want to imagine how they're going to react to the new Russell Crowe film adaptation of the story of Noah's Ark.
Reply
Mars
5/19/2014 05:02:47 pm
According the Geneis Adam and Eve were not given the blessing to be fruitful and multiply as all lifeforms were given prior to their creatiom. Prime reason? Eve was created with genetic material taken from Adam and that immediately makes them blood related. The forbidden fruit was a metaphor for sex and understanding their sexual nature as soon as their eyes were opened "and were "ashamed" in their nakedness. Eve was cursed in her childbirth because she was pregnant at the time of their banishment from Eden after they had 'sinful' incest. The women tempts the man with fruit... he plants a seed. Anyway yeah... detractors please? The first few books of the bible are all about genetics, incest, evolution, science...
Reply
Mars
5/19/2014 05:04:40 pm
GENE sIS GENETIcS.
Reply
Debbie Jones
12/10/2014 06:18:45 am
What road was the 8 skeletons located? I have lived at the corner of primrose and stanton road in north liberty Indiana for 25 years. Also were there any pictures taken?
Reply
K. Workman
3/11/2016 10:01:52 pm
People listen, the bible is a collection of stories which have been altered by many. Why do we Have so many branches of Christianity? People believe what they want to believe and will fight to the death for it. Just a the Pope had Protestants murdered by the French government in the thousands just because he thought they were not true Christians.
Reply
Martin Stower
1/15/2020 10:33:48 am
I have just this moment stumbled over Woodward:
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|