Gonzo Shimura is a filmmaker, podcaster, and the man behind the Facelikethesun YouTube Channel! Shimura has written a short text, Who Are the Sons of God of Genesis 6? The Sethite View Debunked.[1] Shimura comes across as a committed Christian who seeks to understand what the Bible teaches. However, in his treatment of the biblical text, he makes many errors, false assumptions, and logical fallacies. He has no training in nor understanding of the biblical languages, philosophy of language, philosophy, theology, or hermeneutics. He has imbibed the failed efforts of Michael S. Heiser. This essay will identify the errors in Shimua’s interpretation of the text, his logical fallacies, his mishandling of Hebrew and Greek, and his lack of facility in basic grammar and interpretation.
It is important to point out that discussing Shimura’s errors is not a case of an ad hominem fallacy. Many people misunderstand an ad hominem argument as a logical fallacy. Not every ad hominem argument is a fallacy, as Howard Kahane explains, “The question of when an ad hominem argument is fallacious, and when not, is quite complex. In general, it can be said that such an argument is not fallacious when the man argued against is or claims to be an expert on the question at issue.”[2] Although Shimura does not specifically claim to be an expert in Hebrew, Greek, theology, philosophy, or hermeneutics, he presents his arguments and objections as if he speaks authoritatively on these topics when in fact he does not have the understanding, the expertise, the training, or the logic to support his arguments. Therefore, attacking Shimura’s arguments is not an ad hominem fallacy.
Error #1: Misrepresentation of Gen. 4:26
The translation of “then began men to call upon the name of the LORD” is a very poor English rendering. The Hebrew reads “chalal qara shem yhwh.” Chalal is defined as “to pierce, defile, be profaned, or be desecrated”. Qara means to “call, summon, announce, or proclaim.” Shem is defined as “name”, and YHWH is the name of God. So if we render this properly, we can translate this as “men defiled the name of God.” Quite different from what we read in the English and a blow to the idea that the sons of God are the sons of Seth whose descendants worshipped Yahweh properly.[3]
First, Shimura does not have the training or expertise to judge what is and what is not a poor English rendering. He considers it “poor” because it does not support his interpretation. Second, because Shimura does not know or understand Hebrew he is led to the wrong conclusion about the text. The Hebrew text actually reads,אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה (“then was begun to call upon the name of YHWH”). There is no word ‘men’ in the text.[4] The text is not saying anyone began to call on the name of YHWH. It is saying that this is now the state of affairs. It is no longer the case that God would spontaneously interact with someone as He had done with Adam in the garden of Eden. Now it was necessary to call of the name of YHWH. This is because calling upon the name of YHWH is an act of faith and contrition in expressing one’s dependence upon YHWH as Abram does in Genesis 12.
Third, Shimura’s conversion of the Hebrew text into English letters, which is referred to as transliteration, is actually wrong. Using the standard transliteration scheme, the transliteration should be ʾāz hûḥal liqrōʾ bĕšēm Yĕhwāh. This may seem like a trivial point, but it shows Shimura’s lack of facility in Hebrew.
Fourth, Shimura claims that the word “Chalal” means, “to pierce, defile, be profaned, or be desecrated.” Shimura references the Bible Hub for his information about the meaning of the Hebrew word. The Bible Hub[5] is not a standard Hebrew lexicon. It references the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, which is out of date, and, because of the many errors of the lexicon, has been replaced by the Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon.[6] Because Shimura does not know Hebrew, he does not know that the word he references is a Hophal verb. As a Hophal verb, it is the causal-passive meaning “was begun,”[7] not “pierce” as Shimura claims. In fact, this very definition is given in the Bible Hub:
Although the Bible Hub illegitimately adds “(= men began),” the first part of the translation, “then it was begun,” is fairly accurate, although adding the word ‘it’ is incorrect. The infinitive phrase, “to call on the name of YHWH,” is the subject of the verb (see Figure 1 below). In fact, the verb הוּחַל, “was begun,” does not equal “men began.”
Shimura simply ignores this definition and reports only what he thinks supports his view. This is called the fallacy of selective reporting. This is the logical fallacy of reporting only the evidence that supports a conclusion while omitting evidence that weakens or contradicts it. Because Shimura does not understand Hebrew, and does not reference the standard Hebrew lexicon, he misrepresents the text. The text does not say, “men defiled the name of God.” As was pointed out above, there is no word corresponding to the English word ‘men’ in the text. Not only has Shimura misrepresented the text, but he has added to the text a word that is not actually in the text. This is called eisegesis. Eisegesis is reading into the text what one needs it to say in order to make it fit his always-already-present assumption.
Because Shimura has misrepresented the text, his argument in “Objection #1” is completely irrelevant. Shimura appeals to other passages that use other forms from the same root, חלל (ḥll), but he does not know that these words are in different stems.[8] Also, Shimura makes a very common error of thinking that because a word has a certain meaning in one verse, it must have that meaning in another verse that uses the same word. But this is also a fallacy. Words have a semantic range of possible meanings. The same word can have one of the possible meanings in one context and have another of the possible meanings in a different context. Sometimes the same word can have contradictory meanings in different contexts. We see this even in English. The word ‘downhill’ simply means “downward.” In one context it can have a good sense: “Great! Its all downhill from here!” In another context it can have the contradictory sense: “Terrible! Everything is going downhill!” Shimura does not understand that the basic unit of meaning is not the word. James Barr explains the error of this assumption:
Let us now return to the main point here being made, namely that the linguistic bearer of the theological statement is usually the sentence and the still larger literary complex and not the word or the morphological and syntactical mechanisms.
The most important consequence of this arises because the sentence unlike the word is unique and non-recurrent. A language has a vocabulary, i.e. a stock of words which are constantly available and may be used again and again; but it does not have a stock of sentences. This has a manifold importance for the interpretation of the Bible. . . . But as a whole the distinctiveness of biblical thought and language has to be settled at sentence level, that is, by the things the writers say, and not by the words they say them with.[9]
The basic unit of meaning is the sentence. Not only does Shimura not understand Hebrew. He does not seem to understand language.
Error #2: Misrepresentation of the Sethite-view
Next, the Sethite view declares that the daughters of men were simply the daughters of Cain and his evil line.[10]
This is also false. Although there have been advocates of the Sethite-view who argued that the daughters were from the line of Cain, the Sethite-view does not require this. Shimura has committed the straw-man fallacy. This is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position so that it is easier to attack than the actual argument. Shimura has not actually studied the Sethite-view.
Error #3: Misrepresentation of Gen. 6:4
The Sethite view also fails to address one very important factor. The offspring that results from the union between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” were giants; Nephilim. This is yet another strike against the Sethite view since clearly the union between the sons of God and daughters of men caused the corruption of flesh.[11]
This is false. The text does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the union of the sons of God and the daughters of man. The text states, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man, and they brought forth to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of the name” (Gen. 6:4).[12] Notice that the text states that the Nephilim were on the earth when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man. If the Nephilim were on the earth when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man, they could not have been their offspring.
Also, nowhere in the text does it say that the union caused the corruption of flesh. Shimura appeals to Gen. 6:12, but that text says nothing about the union corrupting the flesh. The text says, “for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” It does not say the flesh was corrupted, but that the flesh corrupted his way. The use of the word ‘flesh’ is a reference to the fact that it was the fleshly creatures, that is, mankind, that corrupted their way of life. Shimura does not seem to understand the nature of metaphor, nor does he understand basic grammar. The text states that it was “his way” that was corrupted, not the “flesh.” The word ‘flesh’ is the subject of the verb, not the object of the verb. It was the flesh that did the corrupting, and it was “his way” that was corrupted (see Figure 2).
Again, Shimura shows that he does not know Hebrew. Referring to Gen. 6:12, He says, “The word for corrupt is ‘sahat’ and means, ‘corrupt, ruined, marred, spoiled.’”[13] Shimura does not know that the verb הִשְׁחִית (hišḥîṯ) used in Gen. 6:12 is a Hiphil verb. According to HAL, the Hiphil form of this verb means “to ruin, destroy, annihilate, exterminate.”[14] The Hiphil stem is a causal active form. In this text, “all flesh” is the cause of the corruption. In fact, this same verb is used in 6:13: “I am destroying them [מַשְׁחִיתָם’, mašḥîṯām] with the earth.” In this instance, the verb is a Hiphil participle. God declares that all flesh has destroyed its way on the earth, therefore He will use the earth to destroy them. Because Shimura does not know Hebrew, he completely misunderstands what the text is saying.
Shimura goes on to argue, “So for the Sethite theory to hold up to this scrutiny, they would have to show that the marriage between Godly human men and ungodly human women produced a race of giants but also caused a complete corruption of the flesh of humanity, to the point where God had to flood the earth.”[15] First, the SethiteView does not say that marriage was between godly human men and ungodly human women. Although some proponents of the Sethite-view held this view, it is not a necessary part of the Sethite-view. Second, why should anyone think that the marriage of godly men with ungodly women would necessarily produce evil offspring? There are instances in the OT in which godly couples produced evil offspring, and ungodly couples produced godly offspring. Consider Saul, the first king of Israel. Saul was a corrupt and evil person who tried to kill David. But his son, Jonathan, was a godly man who befriended David.
Third, the word ‘giants’ is actually from certain Greek translations of the Old Testament. According to Origenis Hexaplorum, Aquila’s Greek text translates הַנְּפִלִים with οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες, from ἐπιπίτω. Aquila’s word means “the fallen.”[16] Also, Summachus’ Greek translation uses the word βίαιοι, meaning “violent ones.”[17] According to Rahlfs’ LXX,[18] the word ‘giants’ (γίγαντες, gigantes) in various forms is used to translate nine Hebrew forms. Excepting for the moment Gen. 6:4, in each of the other instances the reference is always either to living humans or dead human spirits. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Septuagint uses the word γίγας (gigas) to refer to human beings, not to beings other than human. The word ‘giants’ does not even occur in the Hebrew text, and the word ‘Nephilim’ does not mean ‘giants.’
Fourth, if we take the word ‘giants’ to refer to the Nephilim, Shimura must explain how the union of the sons of God and the daughters of man produced giants. Why should anyone think that their union would produce giants? This must be proven, not simply asserted. Even if one thinks that the sons of God were angelic beings, why should anyone think that the union of angelic beings and human women would necessarily produce giants? There is no indication in the text that either the sons of God or the daughters of man were themselves giants, and there is no statement in Scripture that a union between angels and women would produce giants. Shimura’s argument fails.
Error #4: Mishandling of Jesus’ Words
Notice Jesus refers to “that age” which is the age to come. This is referring to the future time after Jesus’ return, or what is commonly known as the Millennium reign of Jesus on earth. Jesus also clarifies that it is those who are worthy to attain the resurrection from the dead who won’t marry nor be given in marriage.[19]
The error here is that Shimura ignores the fact that Jesus states that in the future the sons of God will be “angel-like.” Jesus is not referring to the future age for angels, but the future age for the sons of God. At that future age, the sons of God will be like angels are always. Taking Shimura’s approach, one must conclude that it is not until the future age that angels do not die. But that is absurd. Since angels are spiritual beings, they cannot die. This is the nature of angels as incorporeal beings. So also, it is of the nature of angels that they do not marry or are given in marriage, and in the future age, the sons of God will be like angels are always.
Shimura argues that in the future age, “Pro creation will not be necessary. In other words, the passage from Matthew 22:30 and subsequently Luke 20:34–36 has nothing to do with the ability of angels to procreate or not, but rather, it is Jesus stating that procreation will no longer be necessary in the future state of eternal life.”[20] But Shimura completely ignores what Jesus says. Jesus says, “they will be like angels.” The expression “like angels” is actually the single Greek word ἰσάγγελος (isaggelos). It means they will be “angel-like.” The word ἰσάγγελος refers to the nature of angels, not to some time frame for angels. As angels are always, the sons of God in the future age will be like that. Being angel-like means that the sons of God will not marry or die, just like angels cannot marry or die. Shimura has completely misrepresented Jesus’ statement.
Error #5: Confusing Everlasting with Eternal
But what these passages do show us is that angels, and equally, the ‘sons of God’ are eternal beings.
But this is false. Shimura does not understand the difference between eternal being and everlasting beings. Since change from one state to another or from one place to another necessarily involves before and after, which is a minimal necessary definition of time, as Aristotle taught — “When it is for the before and after, then we say time. For this is time, the number of movement according to the before and after”[21] — an eternal being cannot change because an eternal being does not exist in a temporal progression. Angels are not eternal beings. Angels are everlasting beings because they exist in an everlasting progression. There can be only one eternal being, and that is God.
Also, angels take on the appearance of humans, but they do not become humans. To take on an appearance is to change from one state or condition to another. But for a being to change means that the being is not eternal. Angels are not eternal beings. Humans who are born again can die and be raised from the dead to eternal life because they are given the very life of God. Humans who are not born again will die and be raised but not have eternal life. This necessarily involves change. Born again Christians have eternal life, but they are everlasting beings. Born again Christians have eternal life because the life that God gives never changes. But having eternal life does not make born again Christians eternal beings. It means that born again Christians are everlasting beings who have life that does not change. Shimura does not seem to understand apologetics, metaphysics, or theology.
Error #6: Misrepresentation of 2 Peter and Jude
Shimura appeals to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 to conclude, “In other words, these angels who left their rightful domain of the spiritual dimension took on fleshly bodies.”[22] But neither one of these texts refers to any spiritual being leaving the “spiritual dimension” and taking on “fleshly bodies.” Again, Shimur reads into the text his interpretation and then presents this as if it came from the text, but no text states this.
Doing exegesis of these passages would be far too involved for this essay. However, it must be pointed out that in order to connect either 2 Peter or Jude to Genesis 6, one must already assume a certain interpretation of Genesis 6, use it to interpret Peter and Jude, and then use his interpretation of Peter and Jude to support his interpretation of Genesis 6. But this is circular and illegitimate.
Error #7: Not Understanding of Hebrew Poetry
First, it’s fascinating to consider the possibility that angels actually have food. In Psalm 78:25 it states quote: “Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance.”
Here, King David is referencing the manna that was provided while Moses and the Israelites were wandering in the desert during the Exodus from Egypt. The Hebrew word for “angel” here is “abbiyr” and is translated “mighty, powerful, strong animals, social leaders, and angelic beings”. It’s fascinating to consider that manna was in fact, food for the angelic beings.[23]
Again, Shimura gives an incorrect transliteration of the Hebrew word אַבִּיר, translated ‘angels.’ It is not correct to transliterate this abbiyr, as Shimura does. What Shimura transliterates as “iy” is actually a single vowel, not two letters. It is called a hireq yod. Shimura completely ignores the א at the beginning of the word which should be represented by ʾ. It should be transliterated ʾabbîr. What seem to be minor errors reveals Shimura’s lack of facility in the language.
Here Shimura shows that he does not understand Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism and figure of speech. The word אַבִּיר (ʾabbîr) is a metaphor. It is not the usual word for “angel,” which is מַלְאָךְ (malʾāk). The word אַבִּיר simply means “strong, powerful, mighty.” It is used to refer to bulls, steeds, and strong men. Some have interpreted the text as referring to angels because the previous verse refers to heaven, but this shows that the transalation “angels” is an interpretive choice. Of the 34 times the word is used in the OT, only once is it translated in most English Bibles as “angels.” The weight of the evidence indicates that the psalmist is not referring to angels. The psalmist is referring to “mighty ones,” which translators have interpreted to mean “angels.” Because Shimura does not read Hebrew, he completely misunderstands and misrepresents the text.
Angels are not beings of flesh. Sensory appetites are corporeal, but angels are incorporeal. In the book of Hebrews, angels are identified as “spirits”: “13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits [πνεύματα, pneumata], sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:13–14).[24] As Fred Dickason points out, “Angels belong to the class of spirit beings, that is, they are generally understood as immaterial and incorporeal beings. They certainly do not have a material, fleshy body such as humans have.”[25] Why should anyone believe that when angels fell that they suddenly acquired fleshy bodies? Nowhere is such a thing even hinted in Scripture. In fact, after His resurrection, Jesus demonstrated that He was raised from the dead because spirits do not have flesh and bone: “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit [πνεὺμα, pneuma] does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Lk. 24:39).[26] Since Jesus says that spirits do not have flesh and bones, it necessarily follows that angels, which are spirits, do not have flesh. Shimura’s eisegesis of Jude does not support his claim.
Error #8: Misrepresentation of Greek Words
Passages that allude to men going after strange flesh are often thought to have been commentary about homo-sexuality, especially pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah. While it is true, that there was homosexual activity in Sodom and Gomorrah, the word for “strange” in the Greek is “heteros” and means “of uncertain affinity, other or different”. If homosexuality were the main point, why would the word reflect something “different”? I believe it is because the point here was that men lusted after these angels.
Apparently, Shimura does not know Greek either. Again, Shimura fails to consult the standard reference material. According to BDAG,[27] the word ἑτέρῳ (heterō), translated “strange,” can be used to refer to someone or something that is a different instance of the same thing: “other of two, contrasting a definite person or thing w. another.”[28] This is the use in Luke: “Or what king, when he sets out to meet another [ἑτέρῳ, heterō] king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand?” (Lk. 14:31).[29] Here the king is a different king, but nevertheless a king like the first. The expression σαρκὸς ἑτέρος (sarkos heteros) is not a reference to a different kind of flesh, but to a different instance of the same kind of flesh. Shimura ignores the fact that the men of Sodom did not refer to the angels as angels. Rather, they referred to them as men: “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men [הָאֲנָשִׁים, hāʾănāšîm] who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them’” (Gen. 19:5). The men of Sodom did not know that these were angels, and they thought they were men of flesh. They wanted to have sexual relations with these men who were new and different, but nonetheless whom they thought were men.
Error #9: Committing the Genetic Fallacy
In my opinion, the historical origin of the Sethite view provides a nail in the coffin.[30]
This is of course a logical fallacy called the Genetic Fallacy. This is the fallacy of arguing that a claim is false because of its origin rather than arguing against the claim. Just because Augustine and Aquinas proposed a particular version of a view, it does not follow that every version of the same view holds to these same details. Views develop over time. Aspects of the same basic view are changed or deleted without rejecting the overall view. We have already pointed out that it is not a necessary part of the Sethite-view that the daughters of the man were Cainites.
Shimura seems to be unaware of the fact that the origin of the Angels-view was in ancient Jewish mythological literature from the 3rd to the 1st century B.C. Its first known expression was in 1 Enoch. The account of 1 Enoch is mythological and fictional, yet, as far as is presently known, it is the origin of the Angels-view. The angels were “Watchers” who descend from heaven and fathered the giants. A similar account is found in Jubilees[31] and the Genesis Apocryphon (4QGenApoc).[32] These were not Christian texts. The origin of the Angels-view is in ancient Jewish mythology. The present Angels-view has jettisoned many details that were part of the text of 1 Enoch, but without changing the basic view.
The origin of the Sethite-view is not a “nail in the coffin.” Whereas the Sethite-view finds its origin among Christian theologians, the Angels-view has its origin in Jewish mythology and falsehood. Shimura would have his reader accept the teaching of mythology rather than the teaching of Christian theologians.
Error #10: Misrepresenting the Phrase “the sons of God”
The phrase “sons of God” in the Hebrew text is, “benei ha elohim” and appears in the Bible five times in the Old Testament, six if you include the proper translation of Deuteronomy 32:8. The first two times we see the phrase is in Genesis 6. The next three appear in the book of Job.[33]
The phrase in Gen. 6:2 is בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (ḇĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm). Shimura’s transliteration of the word “sons of” is wrong. It is not “benei,” as Shimura has it. What Shimura transliterates ‘ei’ is in fact ֵי, which is a single vowel referred to as a sere yod. The transliteration should be ḇĕnê. Again, this observation may seem to be trivial, but it exposes Shimura’s lack of knowledge of biblical Hebrew.
It is also false that this phrase occurs five times in the Bible. The exact phrase occurs only 4 times, twice in Genesis and twice in Job. In Job there are two instances of בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים; one in Job 1:6 and one in 2:1. The occurrence in Job 38:7 is not the same. It is בְנֵי־אֱלֹהִים. In this instance there is no definite article on the word elohim. Because Shimura does not read Hebrew, he did not even see this difference. The point is, when it comes to Hebrew and Greek, Shimura simply does not know what he is talking about.
Shimura refers to Deut. 32:8, but Shimura has no knowledge of textual criticism. He is alluding to the fact that the Hebrew text reads “sons of Israel,” whereas some Greek manuscripts translate this as “sons of God” or “angels of God.” Shimura refers to this when he states, “Many translations of Deuteronomy 32:8 may read instead, ‘the sons of Israel.’ However, Dr. Michael Heiser in a document entitled Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God clearly demonstrates why the text should more accurately read ‘sons of God.’” In fact, Heiser’s conclusion is false.[34] Heiser misrepresents his sources and engages in selective reporting and eisegesis. The reading “sons of Israel” is the reading in both Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS),[35] which is the present standard Hebrew text, and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ),[36] which is the current text that is designed to update and replace the BHS.
The BHQ lists the following Greek manuscripts that read “sons of Israel”: “בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ Smr a’-q’ s’ V S (TJ) TONF (em scr) |בני אלוהים 4QDeutj G | ἀγγέλων θεοῦ GMss (exeg).”[37] The chart in Figure 3 below gives the list of abbreviations. The apparatus indicates that the earliest reading, found in 4QDeutj and G to be בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים. The apparatus also indicates that the reading “pref[erred]” by the editor is בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִיםbecause it occurs in 4QDeutj, which is the earliest existing Hebrew text. Notice that the apparatus lists only GMss as reading ἀγγέλων θεοῦ and that this reading was a result of exegesis.
Shimura and Heiser make the mistake of thinking that the Septuagint is one monolithic unity with a uniform text. This is false. Shimura does not know what he is talking about.
It is also significant that the Syriac translation reads “sons of Israel” (ܕܒܢܝ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ),[38] as does the Latin Vulgte (filiorum Israël).[39] The overwhelming evidence is that the original reading of the Hebrew text is “sons of Israel,” not “sons of God” or “son of angels.”
Error #11: Misrepresenting Job’s Text
In all of these instances in the book of Job, it is quite clear that the “sons of God” are angelic or divine beings. We know this because first, they present themselves “before the LORD” and His throne.[40]
Again, this is false. Two of the references refer to angels, but Job 38:7 does not. Because Shimura does not understand Hebrew or Hebrew poetry he does not understand what the text is saying. There is a poetic parallelism between the expression “stars of morning,” and “sons of God” (see Figure 4 below). The first part of the poetic line refers to “stars of morning,” and the word “morning” does not have a definite article. The expression “sons of God” lacks the definite article because it functions in poetic parallelism to “stars of morning.” This is a more poetic or figurative reference to the heavenly bodies. As Robert Alter puts it, “The predominant pattern of biblical poetry is to move from a standard term in the first verset to a more literary or highfalutin term in the second verset.”[41] This is precisely what we have here. The parallelism indicates that the expression בְנֵי אֱלֹהִים is not a reference to angles but is a more highfalutin expression to refer to actual stars. Because Shimura does not read Hebrew and does not understand Hebrew poetry, he has misinterpreted the text.
The hyperbolic nature of the poetry of Job 38 is seen in 38:8: “Or who enclosed the sea with doors when, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;” Of course, there are no literal doors that enclose the sea, nor did the sea go out from a literal womb. These are hyperbolic expressions to emphasize the power of God in creation. Likewise, the expressions in 38:7 are hyperbolic. The text is not referring to angels. Rather it is referring to the heavenly bodies that testify to the glorious creative power of God.
Shimura goes on to argue,
The point of reference is clear. The “sons of God” in JOB 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, all derive from the Hebrew “be-nei ha-’e-lo-him” the same Hebrew phrase that’s used in Genesis 6 translated “sons of God.” And while many who hold the Sethite view do agree that the “sons of God” in Job references divine angelic beings, they deny it when it comes to the same phrase in Genesis 6 exposing their inconsistent Hermeneutic.[42]
Because Shimura does not understand the nature of language, he has made the mistake of thinking that because a phrase has a certain reference in one place it must have the same reference in another place. This is false. Shimura has also confused sense and reference.[43] Words and phrases have possible meanings or senses, and the same words can be used to refer to different things. Just because the phrase “the sons of God” in Job is used to refer to angels, it does not follow that the same phrase in Genesis 6 must also refer to angels. This must be demonstrated from the context of the phrase in Genesis 6, not solely on the basis of the reference in another context.
Error #12: Doing Eisegesis on Psalm 82
Shimura makes the mistake of thinking that Michael Heiser’s interpretation of Psalm 82 is accurate. The text is set out in Figure 5 above.
In fact, Heiser was a henotheist. He believed in the existence of other gods, and he taught that YHWH was the head of a pantheon of gods. That Heiser was a henotheist is evident in the observation he makes concerning the text of Psa. 82:1: “The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.”[44] The word ‘pantheon’ is the combination of the Greek adjective πᾶν (pan) meaning “all,” and θεόν (theon) meaning “god.” A pantheon is a group of gods usually arranged in some hierarchical order with the highest and most powerful, and most important god at the top. In the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the king of gods. In Mesopotamian pantheon, An or Anu was “the prime mover in creation, and the distant, supreme leader of the gods.”[45] Although Zeus and An were believed to be the leaders or kings, yet they were believed to be gods like the other gods. This is henotheism, and this is what Heiser is asserting.
Heiser adds words into the text to make it fit his view. Looking at the verse there is no statement about God being a “part” of anything, there is no word corresponding to Heiser’s “pantheon,” nor does the text say anything about “other” gods. The fact that Heiser refers to “other gods” shows that he believed that the “other gods” were gods like God. Since the text does not say what Heiser claims it says, the only way he could have arrived at his conclusion is by reading the text through his always-already-present worldview. It seems transparently obvious that what Heiser claims the Bible says is not what the Bible actually says. It is irrational to think there can be more than one God.
Error #13: Arguing for Henotheism from Psalm 82
In Psalm 82:1–2 it states quote: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?
Actually, Shimura makes the same errors made by Heiser. As we have seen, this is not what Ps. 82:1–2 says. There is no word in the text corresponding to Shimura’s translation “divine council.” The word בַּעֲדַת (baʿăḏaṯ) does not mean “council.”[46] It simply refers to a congregation or assembly. It is used over 400 times in the OT to refer to the congregation of Israel, yet the congregation of Israel never functioned as a council. A congregation does not a council make.
Since there cannot be more than one God, the word אֱלֹהִים, translated “gods,” cannot be a reference to other gods or divine beings. Heiser and Shimura have read into the text their prior belief in the existence of other gods and then presented this as if it came from the text. This is another instance of eisegesis.
God does not have a divine council. As God declared in Isaiah, “13 Who has measured the Spirit of YHWH, and a man as counselor has made known to Him? 14 With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge and informed Him of the way of understanding?” (Isa. 40:13–14).[47] Because God is eternal, He does not engage in discursive reasoning. God does not think through a plan and come to a decision, and God does not consult the advice of some divine council. Heiser is reading into the biblical text his interpretation of Ancient Near Eastern mythology. God knows all things as one eternal present moment. Since God does not need a council, He does not have a council.
Error #14: Not Understanding Textual Criticism
The objection often heard is that the “gods” in Psalm 82 are not in reference to divine beings, but rather human judges. But a passage to lay this idea to rest is found in Deuteronomy 32:8 where it states quote:
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”
Many translations of Deuteronomy 32:8 may read instead, “the sons of Israel.” However, Dr. Michael Heiser in a document entitled Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God clearly demonstrates why the text should more accurately read “sons of God.” This passage is alluding to God assigning divine angelic beings who rejected Him to take dominion over the various regions of the earth. Dr. Heiser makes the connection between the passage here in Deuteronomy 32:8 with the table of nations that we see in Genesis 10. In short, there is no way this can be the “sons of Israel” when Israel had not yet become a nation.[48]
As has been shown above, Heiser is wrong about the text of Deuteronomy. The Hebrew text does not read “sons of God.” The chart in Figure 6 shows the various texts in which the expression “sons of Israel” occurs as opposed to the expressions “sons of God.”
Heiser misrepresents his sources. He simply chooses a translation that agrees with his prior belief and attempts to pass this off as how the text should read. Consider the manuscripts that contain the reading “sons of Israel,” and those that contain the reading “sons of God.”[49]
Even if the reading “sons of God” is accepted, it does not indicate that the sons of God are “other gods.” As illustrated in Figure 7 below, the word ‘nations’ (גּוֹיִם, gôyim) is parallel to the word ‘peoples’ (עַמִּים, ʿammiym), and the words “sons of man” (בְּנֵי אָדָם, bĕnê ʾāḏām) are parallel to the words “sons of God, (בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים, bĕnê ʾĕlōhîm). The parallelism indicates that the sons of God are in fact the sons of man. To interpret this as referring to “other gods” is reading into the text a prior assumption that disrupts the parallelism. Heiser has completely ignored the parallelism of verse 8. It is another case of eisegesis.
Error #15: Misunderstanding “sons of God” in the NT
To put it simply, the “sons of God” represents a direct creation of God. In other words, they were not born from other beings or have human parents but were assembled deliberately and directly by God.[50]
Shimura spends several paragraphs trying to argue that the expression in the NT, “sons of God” (υἱοὶ θεοῦ, huioi theou) indicates that the sons of God were not born of other beings. Again, Shimura commits the fallacy of selective reporting. He ignores the statement in Matt. 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”[51] There is no statement here that these peacemakers were not born from other beings, yet they will be called the sons of God. Paul declares that Jesus was born “out of woman”: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born out of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, genomenon ek gunaikos], born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4).[52] In Rom 1:3, Paul asserts that Jesus was born a descendant of David: “concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh.”[53] In 1 Jn. 5:1, John declares that Jesus was born of God: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.”[54] Just because Jesus was born of God does not mean that He was not born of woman. Just because we are born again does not mean we cease to be human beings born of our parents. Shimura has very bad philosophy of human nature and a worse soteriology.
The expression uiJoi; qeou: (“sons of God”) occurs only 4 times in the NT: Matt. 5:9, Lk. 20:36, Rom. 8:14, and Gal 3:26. In none of these instances is there any hint that the sons of God cease to be human beings, that they were not born from their human parents, or that as the sons of God they have not been born from other beings.
Shimura also ignores the statement in Hosea in which the expression “sons of the Living God” refers to human beings: “Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place where it is said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ it will be said to them, ‘You are the sons of the living God’” (Hosea 1:10).[55] In Rom. 9:26 Paul quotes this passage as referring to the Gentile human beings. Are we to think that God in Genesis 6 is not the Living God? Since God of Genesis 6 is the Living God, and since the people in Hosea are referred to as the sons of the Living God, it follows that the expression “sons of God” in Genesis 6 can be referring to human beings. Since the expression can be used to refer to human beings, Shimura must show that it does not refer to human beings in Genesis 6. This is something he has not done, and there is no indication in the text that the sons of God were not human beings. All of Shimura’s arguments and appeals to verses and words are simply smoke and mirrors. None of this shows that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were not human beings.
Error #16: Faulty Philosophy of Human Nature
So how does this entire concept deny the Sethite view and help us understand the identity of the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6? Because whoever those “sons of God” were in Genesis 6, they had to be a direct creation of God. And since Adam, the first “son of God”, as mentioned in Luke 3:38, fell in the Garden, all those who were born from Adam are sons and daughters of Adam, or in the case of Genesis 6, daughters of men.
Since we have shown to be false Shimura’s claim that the sons of God in the NT were not born of other beings, it follows that his claim about how this relates to Genesis 6 is false. Again, Shimura has made the mistake of thinking that the meaning of a word or phrase in one context must have the same meaning in other contexts. There is no indication in Genesis 6 that the sons of God were the direct creation of God. It is particularly problematic for Shimura’s claim that the text refers to the sons of God as men who began to multiply on the face of the ground. The way men began to multiply was by being born of other beings.
Error #17: Avoiding Consequences
I do want to clarify one thing before we end. The phrase “Fallen Angels” that is often referenced to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 is more of a title rendered in modern vernacular rather than any clear translation from the Hebrew or Greek word for “angels”. The more precise description may be phrased “Divine beings” or “gods” with a lower-case g. Hence my use of “fallen divine angelic beings” as a description of who the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were. Nevertheless, the case for the “sons of God” being non-human is quite evident.[56]
Here Shimura attempts to avoid a conclusion that necessarily follows from his claim that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. Why should anyone think that the expression “Divine beings” or “gods” is a more precise description? He in fact refers to them as “fallen divine angelic beings.” Of course, whether Shimura wants to call them “Divine beings” or “gods,” he still holds the view that the angels were fallen angels. Fallen angels would never be called “the sons of God.” In Job, the sons of God are not fallen angels, and Satan was not one of the sons of God who came to present themselves.
It is significant that Shimura capitalizes the word “Divine” when he refers to “Divine beings.” Why capitalize “Divine” and then refer to “gods” with a lower-case g? Apparently, Shimura wants to avoid the implication that he is a polytheist, but that ship has already sailed. Referring to these fallen angels as ‘Diving beings’ or ‘gods,’ even with a lower-case g, does not extricate Shimura or Heiser from being polytheists. There are no “other gods,” as God declares: “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides Me there is not a god [אֱלֹהִים, ʾĕlōhîm]” (Isa. 44:6).[57]
Again, “See now that I, I am He, and there is not a god [אֱלֹהִים, ʾĕlōhîm] besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, and there is no one who can deliver from My hand” (Deut. 32:39).[58]
Again, “Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, YHWH? And there are no other gods [וְאֵין־עוֹד אֱלֹהִים, wĕʾên ʿōḏ ʾĕlōhîm] besides Me, righteous God and Savior; There is none except Me” (Isa. 45:21).[59]
Again, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).[60]
To claim that there are other gods is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and classical Christian theology. It is polytheism, pure and simple. Like Heiser, Shimura is wrong on all points.
Error #18: Eisegesis of Ezekiel’s Text
Much like how we read about the fall of Satan from anointed Cherub to leader of the rebellion against God, it is possible that these “sons of God” who were sent initially to serve mankind who were made in the image of God, fell and became part of the satanic rebellion.[61]
Nowhere in the Bible is Satan referred to as an anointed Cherub. Shimura is getting this notion from the popular misinterpretation of Ezekiel 28. The prophecy is directed at the king of the city of Tyre. This was a human king. The descriptions are hyperboles describing the position and glory that God had given this human king. Verse 14 states, “You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire” (Ezek. 28:14).[62] The problem with thinking this refers to Satan is the description in verse 16: “By the abundance of your trade [רְכֻלָּתְךָ, rĕkullāṯkā] you were internally filled with violence, and you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire” (Ezek. 28:16).[63] The word translated “trade” occurs only in Ezekel. In verse 5 the text refers to the trade of the prince of Tyre by which he increased in riches. Satan was never a tradesman nor is there any reference to Satan increasing in riches. In fact, the name ‘Satan’ does not even occur in the book of Ezekiel. The “anointed cherub” is a hyperbolic reference to the glory of the king of Tyre, glory which God had given him. Shimura simply does not do his homework.
Also, the text states that God “destroyed” the king of Tyre. The word translated “destroyed” (אבד, ʾḇḏ) is a Piel verb that means “to cause to perish, to destroy.”[64] Satan has not perished nor has God destroyed him. This not referring to Satan.
CONCLUSION
Gonzo Shimura is not trained in, nor does he have any competence in Hebrew, Greek, hermeneutics, basic grammar, philosophy, or theology, yet he presumes to speak authoritatively on these matters. He does not consult the standard reference materials, he reads into the text what the text does not actually say, and he misunderstands what the text does say. In the process, he has misrepresented the text, misinterpreted the text, engaged in faulty logic, and promoted henotheism. Not only has Shimura not debunked the Sethite-view, but he does not even understand the Sethite-view. His debunking has been debunked.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Gonzo Shimura, Who Are the Sons of God of Genesis 6? The Sethite View Debunked (Face Like The Sun. Kindle Edition).
[2] Howard Kahane, Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973), 240.
[3] Shimura, Location 30.
[4] This essay will employ the distinction between use and mention. One uses a word to refer to or talk about something. One mentions a word when referring to or talking about the word. Words that are mentioned will be contained in single quotation marks.
https://biblehub.com/
[6] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994–2000) (HAL). I suspect that the Bible Hub uses the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon because it is free. It is free because it is very little academic value.
[7] HAL, s.v. “חלל.”
[8] Hebrew verbs occur in stems. The most common are Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hithpael, Hiphil, and Hophal. Each stem indicates a certain sense of the verb. For example, the Qal stem is the simple active meaning of the verb.
[9] James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 269–70.
[10] Shimura, Location 30.
[11] Shimura, Location 66.
[12] הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְגַם אַחֲרֵי־כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל־בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים
(Gen. 6:4) אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם׃
[13] Shimura, Location 66.
[14] HAL, s.v. “שׁחת.”
[15] Shimura, Location 66.
[16] Fridericus Field, Prolegomena: Genesis-Esther, Tomus I, Origenis Hexaplorum (Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), Gen. 6:4.22. See also, J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), s.v. “ejpipivtw.”
[17] Origenis Hexaplorum, Gen. 6:4.22. See also, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, s.v. “bivaioV, -a, -on.”
[18] Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
[19] Shimura, Location 66.
[20] Shimura, Location 66.
[21] Aristotelis, Φυσικης Ακροασεως/Naturalis Auscultationis, in Opera Omnia Græce et Latine (Parisiis: Ambrosio Firmin-Didot, 1927), IV.11.219a. Ὅταν δὶ τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον, τότε λέγομεν χρόνον· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὁ χρόνος, ἀριθμὸς κινήσεως κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον./Quum autem prius et posterius sentimus, tunc dicimus esse Tempus. Tempus enim nihil aliud est quam numerus motus secundum prius et posterius.
[22] Shimura, Location 99.
[23] Shimura, Locations 99–129.
[24] 13 πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἴρηκέν ποτε· Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου; 14 οὐχὶ πάντες εἰσὶν λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα εἰς διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμενα διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν; (Heb. 1:13–14).
[25] C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect & Evil, 2d ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 37.
[26] ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας μου ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός· ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεὺμα σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα (Lk. 24:39).
[27] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) (BDAG).
[28] BDAG, s.v. “ἕτερος.”
[29] ἤ τίς βασιλεὺς πορευόμενος ἑτέρῳ βασιλεῖ συμβαλεῖν εἰς πόλεμον οὐχὶ καθίσας πρῶτον βουλεύσεται εἰ δυνατός ἐστιν ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν ὑπαντῆσαι τῷ μετὰ εἴκοσι χιλιάλων ἐρχομένῳ ἐπ’ αὐτόν; (Lk. 14:31).
[30] Shimura, Location 129.
[31] The Book of Jubilees is a second temple era Jewish rewriting of Genesis and Exodus.
[32] The Genesis Apocryphon is an Aramaic rewriting of Genesis.
[33] Shimura, Location 163.
[34] A more lengthy treatment of Heiser’s arguments in The Unseemly Realm. This is available upon request from thowe@ses.edu.
[35] K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart; Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977).
[36] Carmel McCarthy, ed. Deuteronomy: Biblica Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007).
[37] Carmel McCarthy, Deuteronomy, vol. 5, Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), Deut. 32:8.93. Biblia Hebraica Quinta is the fifth edition and the latest critical edition of the Hebrew Bible designed to replace the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
[38] Leiden Peshitta (Leiden: Peshitta Institute Leiden, 2008).
[39] Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam (Rome: Tipografia Apostolica Vaticana, 1592).
[40] Shimura, Location 163.
[41] Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 2d ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 13.
[42] Shimura, Location 193.
[43] Gottlob Frege articulated the distinction between sense and reference in, “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.”
[44] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, Washington: Lexham Press, 2015), 11. Emphasis in original.
[45] Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1992), 30.
[46] HAL, s.v. “עֵדָה.”
[47] 13מִי־תִכֵּן אֶת־רוּחַ יְהוָה וְאִישׁ עֲצָתוֹ יוֹדִיעֶנּונ׃ 14 אֶת־מִי נוֹעָץ וַיְבִינֵהוּ וַיְלַמְּדֵהוּ בְּאֹרַח מִשְׁפָּט וַיְלַמְּדֵהוּ
(Isa. 40:13–14). דַעַת וְדֶרֶךְ תְּבוּנוֹת יוֹדִיעֶנּוּ׃
[48] Shimura, Location 221.
[49] Dates that have been proposed for the list of mss include the following: 4QDeutj First Century B.C.; Aquila c. 140 A.D.; Symmachus c. 200 A.D.; Syriac Peshitta Second Century A.D.; Peshitta Second Century A.D.; Theodotion Late Second Century A.D.; Targum Onqelos Second Century A.D.; Targun Neofiti 4th Century A.D.; Vulgate 4th Century A.D.; Procopius Gazaeus c. 465–528 A.D.; Masoretic Text 7th to 10th Century A.D.; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 12th Century A.D.; Fragment Targum to the Pentateuch ?; emendation of the scribes?.
[50] Shimura, Location 223.
[51] μακάριοι οἰ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται (Matt. 5:9).
[52] ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (Gal. 4:4).
[53] περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα (Rom. 1:3).
[54] Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐκ αὐτοῦ (1 Jn. 5:1).
[55] וְהָיָה מִסְפַּר בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִמַּד וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר וְהָיָה בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יֵאָמֵר לָהֶם לֹא־עַמִּי אַתֶּם יֵאָמֵר
(Hosea 1:10) לָהֶם בְּנֵי אֵל־חָי׃
[56] Shimura, Location 288.
[57] Shimura, Location 2.
[58] רְאוּ עַתָּה כִּי אֲנִי אֲנִי הוּא וְאֵין אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי אֲנִי אָמִית וַאַחַיֶּה מָחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא וְאֵין מִיָּדִי מַצּיל׃
(Deut. 32:39)
[59] הַגִּידוּ וְהַגִּישׁוּ אַף יִוָּעֲצוּ יַחְדָּו מִי הִשְׁמִיעַ זֹאת מִקֶּדֶם מֵאָז הִגִּידָהּ הֲלוֹא אֲנִי וְאֵין־עוֹד אֱלֹהִים מִבַּלְעָדַי אֵל־דִּיק
(Isa. 45:21) וּמוֹשִׁיעַ אַיִן זוּלָתִי׃
[60] εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεςίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς (1 Tim. 2:5).
[61] Shimura, Location 291.
[62] (Ezek. 28:14) אַתְּ־כְּרוּב מִמְשַׁח הַסּוֹכֵךְ וּנְתַתִּיךָ בְּהַר קֹדֶשׁ אֱלֹהִים הָיִיתָ בְּתוֹךְ אַבְנֵי־אֵשׁ הִתְהַלָּכְתָּ׃
[63] בְּרֹב רְכֻלָּתְךָ מָלוּ תוֹכְךָ חָמָס וַתֶּטָא וָאֶחַלֶּלְךָ מֵהַר אֱלֹהִים וָאַבֶּדְךָ כְּרוּב הַסֹּכֵךְ מִתּוֹךְ אַבְנֵי־אֵשׁ׃
(Ezek. 28:16)
[64] HAL, s.v. “אבד.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry, 2d ed. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
Aristotelis. Opera Omnia Græce et Latine. Parisiis: Ambrosio Firmin-Didot, 1927.
Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Rome: Tipografia Apostolica Vaticana, 1592.
Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1992.
Dickason, C. Fred. Angels: Elect & Evil, 2d ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart; Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977.
Field, Fridericus. Prolegomena: Genesis-Esther. Tomus I, Origenis Hexaplorum. Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964.
Gall, August Freiherrn von. Der Hebräische Pentateuch Der Samaritaner. Giessen, Germany: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1918.
Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, Washington: Lexham Press, 2015.
Houghton, Hugh, et al. The Greek New Testament, 6th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2025.
Kahane, Howard. Logic and Philosophy: A Modern Introduction. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994–2000.
Leiden Peshitta. Leiden: Peshitta Institute Leiden, 2008.
Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992.
McCarthy, Carmel. Deuteronomy. Vol. 5, Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
Shimura, Gonzo. Who Are the Sons of God of Genesis 6? The Sethite View Debunked. FaceLikeTheSun. Kindle Edition, 2014.