UFOs and Abductions Part 3: Alien-Human Hybrids (aka Nephilim Hybrids)

This blog is pretty much 100% pure speculation. Again, the culmination of the conflicting accounts i've encountered in studying UFOs over the years.

To start with, not only am i late to the party (as usual) i also kind of hate looking into the alien hybrid/modern nephilim phenomena. I would rather not have addressed it, but i kind of felt led to, since i covered the dark spiritual side, and the human involvement. I hate it because there's no real, tangible evidence of hybrids, and there's so much weird stuff that goes on with it. Or if there is, it's open to interpretation.

It also accomplishes two of satan's goals just by existing. It distracts, and it destroys. Some people (no one in particular in mind...really!) spend way too much time worrying about hybrids everywhere. I used to. It also destroys by setting believers of differing opinions against each other. It caused quite a quarrel among many believers i highly respect a year or so ago.

As if the Christian church didn't have enough things to fight over. We've added one more to the list, except when we fight over this one, we really throw people off. Few of us "kooks" dispute that Genesis 6 and afterwards there were nephilim-human/angel hybrids. The debate is whether or not it's happening now or not as part of the UFO phenomena. Many abductees report breeding programs taking place as part of their experiences.

Some Christian researchers use a number of texts to support their viewpoint. The Book of I Enoch (quoted in the book of Jude and Peter in the Bible.) Genesis 6 and Daniel 2 (though i'm not fully convinced that the iron mixing with clay in Daniel 2 means there's nephilim. It's often asked who is the "they" where it says "they shall mingle themselves...") still, most of the rest do refer to nephilim of Genesis 6, initially the offspring of fallen angels and human women.

No problem, except the aforementioned Daniel, which i could be wrong on. I have other theories on Daniel 2, for some other time perhaps. My basic thought is the iron mixed with clay is "hard" governments like communism/dictatorships as iron. Clay, is the democratic governments of the world. People are made of "clay" in Genesis, so maybe governments "of the people mean" mean clay. Communism and democracy don't mingle all that well. At least they never used to.

But i digest.

So, the flood of Noah wiped the nephilim out. Done deal.

The problem comes with the nephilim after the flood (Og,Conquest off Canaan, David vs Goliath). Did more fallen angels mate with human women after the flood? Are they doing it now? That's where the split is. Where did the post flood nephilim come from? Some think that more angels came and mated with women again.

My thoughts are, if the angels that did this the first time were put into the abyss, outlined in Enoch, Jude and Peter, why would more angels jump to do it again? Sure, they were going to be put there eventually anyways, but why hasten the trip?

If i knew i was going to jail in 20 years for something, but had 20 years of freedom to enjoy i'd enjoy my 20 years. But if say, commiting crime X would get me there immediately, i would avoid crime X. But, fallen angels are insane, after all, they did, as finite creatures, rebel against an infinite God (having been with Him even!) so who knows what their thought processes are like.

Perhaps a few angels took the fall, did the deed and got thrown in the abyss, while the other fallen are still loose. These nephilim propagated again after the flood, but kept their numbers down to keep God from acting against them. That's 100% speculation.

At any rate, for more on post flood nephiilim, i covered that here http://dontaskthatinchurch.blogspot.com/2011/09/wipe-outall-of-them-why-would-good-and.html and another link in that blog.

Check out Dante Fortson's King Wells interviews for more on that. I don't have a link, but it should be in iTunes, or Bro. Dante can find the link for you. You'll have to do the legwork on that one. Dante also has a book "In the Days of Noah" that might be worth a look, that may get into more of this.

At any rate, the split among us kooks is, are angels or demons disguising themselves as aliens and making more nephilim through UFO abductions? Both sides have good evidence. Having looked at both sides, i can't say that i can really decide myself. Personally, i do lean more towards the hybrids being an illusion.

Let's start with Joe Jordan's illusion view.

http://www.alienresistance.org/ce4testimonies.htm

I have heard Joe speak on several interviews and he maintains that ALL alien abductions are illusions. His main proof of this is that he was doing an over the phone deliverence with a guy. This guy said they were taking him, and when he had been "taken" his wife picked up the phone and said he had just passed out. This happened several times, the guy was convinced that he went somewhere, but he actually didn't.

I'm sure the above link corroborates that story in other testimonies.

Using stories like that, Jordan posits that the hybrid encounters are actually illusions as well. Illusions designed to form a bond with the demons, making it harder to get free from them. The demons are presenting illusory children to take advantage of maternal and paternal instincts in abductees, which would make the abductee desire more contacts.

I can completely believe this.

However, the flipside of this issue is the physical evidence, or physical encounters with alleged hybrids. After all, how do you explain the physical evidence of an abduction, the scoop marks, and implants and what not? If it's a spiritual mental thing, there should be no physical traces. That's where satan's human agents, whoever THEY may be, come into play as discussed in my last blog.

Anyways, onto some of those who support the physical hybrid arguments.

LA Marzulli posted on his blog that someone encountered a possible hybrid in a shopping mall. I probably made some comment in there somewhere, see if you can find it!

http://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/hybrids-among-us-nephilim/

Weird.

There's also a book called "Raechel's Eyes" about an alleged hybrid "THEY" were trying to integrate into society, except this one failed. I haven't read it, but heard the story somewhere. It was weird, but another one of those ones that's hard to prove.

Betty Andreasson in "Watchers" saw a woman's baby taken from the womb, then placed into a container to finish gestating. This was apparently a baby grey or a hybrid. It wasn't clear. That book is weird anyways, and i would gather there was alot of demonic illusion going on, so maybe this should really be in the first section. The interesting thing though is it triggered an emotional response in Betty.

Then there's Dr. David Jacobs' "The Threat." This book goes through a number of cases where abductees produced hybrids and somehow Jacobs came to a realization that these hybrids were being integrated into our society for some unknown end. Of course, at least some of this data was collected by use of hypnosis, so i would wonder if all or any of it is trustworthy. That seems to be the general problem with UFO alien-human hybrids, there is little in the form of actual physical proof. Still, Jacobs makes a compelling case.

Tom Horn has some interesting thoughts to add to this debate. He maintains that the nephilim in Genesis 6 weren't JUST the children of angels, but also DNA hybrids of animals too. Chimeras. Verse 12 does say that ALL flesh had been corrupted. So perhaps some of every species and most of humanity was hybridized and genetically modified to some extent.

Another weird one, but it would explain the legends of centaurs, satyrs and the like. What makes this relevant now is the transhumanism movement.

This isn't science fiction either. Earlier this year, scientists had admitted to growing 150 human-animal hybrids in a lab. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html

Why would they be doing this?

Sure these were JUST embryos, but the article says there are hybrids being grown in countries WITHOUT regulation. This story is just what we've been told about, how do we know there aren't human animal hybrids that were grown to full term?

Now this was just a lab, not a UFO or abduction scenario, but how do we know there aren't any of those?

So IF there are nephilim around now, why don't we see them?

One argument is that the UFO breeding programs are designed to make the nephilim fit in more.

One theory of mine is that bigfoot, if physical, is a nephilim. I first heard this in a podcast, of course, and it was an interview with a guy who's studied sasquatch for 50 years, since the age of 12. His name escapes me. But at any rate, he maintained that there are a number of UFO flaps that also involve an uptick in bigfoot sightings too.

Here are some articles i found on a message board.

http://www.ufomystic.com/2009/04/09/bigfoot-and-ufos-2/

http://www.w-files.com/files/bfpicklepatch.html

This one is the best. The bigfoot were fired upon, seemingly with no effect, AND there was the smell of sulfur, which has allegedly been reported with a few alien encounters and of course, demonic manifestation.

http://www.mombu.com/aviation/unidentified-flying-objects/t-25-years-ago-today-a-scary-bigfootufo-encounter-3254395.html

Of course, the bigfoot theory may not hold water. There are reports of bigfoot being shot point blank with no effect. If bigfoot were a nephilim, then logically it should have died from a gunshot like the rest of the nephilim in the Bible. This sort of case suggests bigfoot may be yet another illusory demonic manifestation.

Wow, that was a rabbit trail. So aside from the actual creation of human animal hybrids in a lab, there's really little to no physical evidence for alien-human nephilim being made.

However, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. An underground eugenics program run by people and demonic beings under cover of a UFO invasion would fit nicely with satan's earlier, public eugenics plans at the beginning of the 20th century. It certainly has a better PR spin.

That aside, debating hybrids, and looking into it will take you down MANY rabbit trails, many of them into David Icke or New Age/UFO places which is really not a good use of time.

And, even if there is a nephilim/underground eugenics, we are not told about it explicitly in the Bible. Yes, Jesus says Matthew 24 that the end of days would be "like the days of Noah". Does that mean modern nephilim? Some think so, especially in light of the iron mixing with clay in Daniel 2.

But notice one thing. Even if Jesus and Daniel are warning about nephilim in the last days, they don't say believers should do anything about it! We're not supposed to try to stop these programs. We probably can't. We shouldn't live in fear of hybrids among us like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". God alone will deal with them.

Although Paul tells us:

Epeshians 5:11 - 13

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].

For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light."

And Jesus tells us:

Matthew 10:28 - 30

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

So what should Christians do and think about the hybrid phenomena?

We should probably have a basic knowledge about the phenomena, so we can answer those in the conspiracy realm, and use it as a witnessing tool for Christ. Perhaps use someone's interest in alien-human hybrids to tell them it happened before, in Genesis 6, and here's what God will do about it in the end, then show them Revelation, and share the Gospel.

Aside from that, there's really nothing else we can do about it. God alone will deal with it when His Son Jesus Christ returns, ala Revelation 19.



Appendix

http://preemptionbroadcast.podomatic.com/enclosure/2011-11-17T16_19_15-08_00.mp3


http://preemptionbroadcast.podomatic.com/enclosure/2011-11-20T15_38_00-08_00.mp3

Neph

A touchy topic, circumcision

First off, I had brief thought related to suffering, and my previous posts on it. If it's wise, and holds some water, then thank God for giving me this insight. If it's way off, I'm human, there you go.



My thought and perhaps a rebuttal to atheists and agnostics etc that say "Why would a loving God allow suffering?" The thought that came into my head today is, God may see this as not why does He allow us humans to suffer, but what do we here on earth do to prevent and relieve that suffering? Perhaps it's allowed so that we have a chance to show God's glory and reveal our own characters. Perhaps I've already been down this road.


Anyways, my friend and sibling in the Lord, Hopeful has asked why did God choose circumcision as a sign of the covenant with Abraham? Here is the question in it's entirety. Hopeful, thanks for your question.

"I often thought about the nature of circumcision in the Bible and why this was an important right of passage. And then an odd thought struck me about it. Much of the Old Testament was a “physical” battle of demonic entities and much of the New Testament is a spiritual battle with the same entities, although the spiritual affects those physically on Earth. Again in the Old Testament, there is a under current theme of physical demonic beings corrupting a chosen people, even by cross breeding. So, the act of circumcising ones penis is not something people would naturally be inclined to do. What if this practice was done to attempt to maintain a pure blood line of God’s people? The circumcised penis would be obvious before sexual intercourse took place. In other words, this practice was done to combat the spread of the nephilim blood line."

For those unfamiliar with circumcision, it's the removal of the foreskin of the penis. That's basically it. The Bible commands this to be done on the 8th day, and some of the research I turned up indicates that other cultures, (that is, pagans) did it too. Though some cultures did not. There are also records of adults being circumcised throughout the Bible as well. Here is a good overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision (warning, graphic images.) and here are all or most of the spots it shows up in the Bible. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=circumci%2A&t=NLT)

Hopeful's is a very interesting insight into circumcision, and it's certainly not something I can discount. In the OT it definitely was a purely physical thing, and in the NT, it takes on a more spiritual undertone with terms like "circumcised hearts" it seems that to God, it's a big deal, but later on a physical circumcision is less so.

Before we begin speculating on circumcision as a way to prevent nephilim infiltration, let's take a look at some facts about circumcision. In the Bible, I believe that Genesis 17:10 (verse 9 is the set up) is the first instance of circumcision.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=17&t=NLT.


17:10 This is the covenant that you and your descendants must keep: Each male among you must be circumcised;

17:11 the flesh of his foreskin must be cut off. This will be a sign that you and they have accepted this covenant.

17:12 Every male child must be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. This applies not only to members of your family, but also to the servants born in your household and the foreign-born servants whom you have purchased.

17:13 All must be circumcised. Your bodies will thus bear the mark of my everlasting covenant.

Notice in verse 11, that it is indeed a sign of a covenant. My Life Application Study Bible has some commentary on this that possibly supports Hopeful's theory. Here is the commentary, paraphrased:

"Why circumcise? 1) sign of obedience, 2) a sign of belonging to the covenant people, 3) a symbol of cutting off the old sin life, and 4) as a health measure." (It has been written that circumcised males have a much lower rate of STD transmission than uncircumcised males. see the wiki article above has some stats on it as well.)

If it is a sign of obedience to God, enemies of God would possibly not performed the practice. more on that later.

Another really good answer I found was in Yahoo answers oddly enough. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080802181151AAsZzQt Rather than quote directly, my interpretation of the answer is that sensitivity is required when you are in a spiritual relationship with the Lord, and circumcision is a constant reminder (especially if you did it when you are older!) of the sensitivity and vulnerability required.

There are those in the secular world who would have us believe that circumcision was invented elsewhere, then adopted by the Jews. (www.cirp.org/library/history/) Here, the author indicates that the ritual is far older than the account of Abraham. Several sources seem to agree that the oldest record of circumcision was found in Egypt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision) Which makes some sense since the Israelites lived there. No doubt a number of Egyptians adopted the practice. Of course historians and anthropologists want to speculate that the Jews took it from someone else, again I disagree. I can't see a culture adopting this just for the heck of it without being directed to from an outside source.

My thoughts are that since the Torah was written long after Abraham that would create some chronological confusion for our anthropologists. I personally believe that it was indeed Abraham who originated it at God's direction, and perhaps later other cultures imitated it at Satan's direction, or for some other reason. That is my theory anyways, I suppose I could really dig deep and put this out there with a ton of documentation, and maybe I will one day.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=2&contentID=7337&commInfo=31&topic=Genesis&ar=Gen_17_11

David Guzik's commentary is good overall, and he makes other good points. Here is a brief bit of what he says:

i. Circumcision was not unknown in the world at that time. It was a ritual practice among various peoples.

ii. There were undoubtedly hygienic reasons, especially making sense in the ancient world. “There is some medical evidence that this practice has indeed contributed to the long-lasting vigor of the Jewish race.” (Morris) McMillen, in None of These Diseases, noted studies in 1949 and 1954 showing an incredibly low rate of cervical cancer for Jewish women, because they mostly have husbands who are circumcised.

iii. But more importantly, circumcision is a cutting away of the flesh and an appropriate sign of the covenant for those who should put no trust in the flesh.

iv. Also, because circumcision deals with the organ of procreation, it was a reminder of the special seed of Abraham, which would ultimately bring the Messiah.

On a side note, Guzik (I believe) also points out that this is where God gives Abraham something to do. Hence, Abraham has to prove his faith by taking an action.

Matthew Henry says:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=644&commInfo=5&topic=Genesis&ar=Gen_17_11

"Those who will have God to be to them a God must consent and resolve to be to him a people. Now, (1.) Circumcision was a bloody ordinance; for all things by the law were purged with blood, Heb. 9:22. See Ex. 24:8. But, the blood of Christ being shed, all bloody ordinances are now abolished; circumcision therefore gives way to baptism. (2.) It was peculiar to the males, though the women were also included in the covenant, for the man is the head of the woman. In our kingdom, the oath of allegiance is required only from men. Some think that the blood of the males only was shed in circumcision because respect was had in it to Jesus Christ and his blood. (3.) It was the flesh of the foreskin that was to be cut off, because it is by ordinary generation that sin is propagated, and with an eye to the promised seed, who was to come from the loins of Abraham. Christ having not yet offered himself to us, God would have man to enter into covenant by the offering of some part of his own body, and no part could be better spared. It is a secret part of the body; for the true circumcision is that of the heat: this honour God put upon an uncomely part, 1 Co. 12:23, 24. (4.) The ordinance was to be administered to children when they were eight days old, and not sooner, that they might gather some strength, to be able to undergo the pain of it, and that at least one sabbath might pass over them. (5.) The children of the strangers, of whom the master of the family was the true domestic owner, were to be circumcised (v. 12, 13), which looked favourable upon the Gentiles, who should in due time be brought into the family of Abraham, by faith. See Gal. 3:14. (6.) The religious observance of this institution was required under a very severe penalty, v. 14. The contempt of circumcision was a contempt of the covenant; if the parents did not circumcise their children, it was at their peril, as in the case of Moses, Ex. 4:24, 25. With respect to those that were not circumcised in their infancy, if, when they grew up, they did not themselves come under this ordinance, God would surely reckon with them. If they cut not off the flesh of their foreskin, God would cut them off from their people. It is a dangerous thing to make light of divine institutions, and to live in the neglect of them."

So as you can see throughout all of these examples that there is plenty of non-nephilim reasons for circumcision. It was possibly for health reasons, it was part of a blood covenant with God and thus symbolic (possibly) of Christ's shed blood, it signified that the flesh ought not be subject to the flesh and many more signs. But, does that exclude the possibility that it was also used for the purpose of preventing nephilim?

I couldn't find any other information about that, of course. I had thought maybe to look in the Talmud, but my attempt to contact a Rabbi went unanswered (go figure). I would like to look in there to see if there is anything "mythical" about circumcision. Sadly, I must instead try to use some logic to puzzle it out.

Firstly, is it possible that a nephilim could have infiltrated God's people? We do know that many nephilim were described as giants, but that does not necessarily mean they were all actual giants. I believe it's been said that the "giants" of Genesis 6 could also mean "men of renown." My thought, and this is PURE SPECULATION is that some of the Genesis 6 nephilim were giants, actual giants, and some were not, but were amazing in other ways perhaps like superheroes. But all of the Genesis 6 nephilim were killed in the flood. Then you have some nephilim on the earth after the flood.

This is really a study for another time, but we don't know how the nephilim after the flood were created. It doesn't matter. But the Bible says they were around. But as far as I can tell, out of all those folks, the nephilim (if I am right) were all giants. Deut 3:11 gives Og's bed a dimension of 13 feet long. We also know from elsewhere that Goliath was something like 9 feet tall. 2 Samuel 21:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Sa&c=21&t=NLT#18) indicates that further nephilim (if they were nephilim) were also giants and that they had other distinguishing characteristics such as polydactylism.

For more on the nephilim I would 1) read the Bible, 2) http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&topic=Giants go to that link and 3) check out Judd Burton's book (the title of which I have forgotten) and 4) check out this link http://www.stevequayle.com/index.html

So what's with the detour on giants and such, when we have not yet answered the main question? Could circumcision have also been used to prevent those of nephilim descent from intermarrying with the Israelites?

I guess where I was going with this is that I think all of the descendants of the nephilim would have had gigantic stature, or readily apparent distinctive features. In light of this, I think that it is unlikely that circumcision was a way to keep nephilim out. If there were nephilim that had tried to infiltrate Israel, I think that it would have been in the Bible. We do know though, that the demons (spirits of dead nephilim) attacked Israel through idol worship and pagan practices. We also know there were physical battles with nephilim as well. Alot of the "ites" appeared to be descended from giants.

However, I cannot rule out that it was a possibility. Mainly because, if any male was found uncircumcised, he was to be cut off from the people of Israel. So if a nephilim had snuck in, and if he was found to be uncircumcised, he would have been kicked out. But, if they had wanted to badly enough, an adult nephilim could have undergone circumcision and infiltrated anyways, though as hopeful points out, it's contrary to one's nature to circumcise oneself at an older age. But who's to say that the nephilim wouldn't have circumcised their boys, to facilitate infiltration at a later time? If so, Jews circumcising their children would not necessarily be the best way to protect themselves from nephilim infiltration and bloodline pollution. It could have been possible(depending on if the nephs did circumcision in any way).

In my opinion, a better opportunity to try to pollute the bloodline of Jesus the Messiah - thus further rendering circumcision as a sign against neph infiltrators useless - would be to seduce the Israelite men with foreign wives. Circumcision doesn't even come into play at this point. A female nephilim (are there such things? why not?) could sneak in through marriage and could pollute the bloodline quite easily. A female nephilim, in my opinion, would have had a better chance at infiltration than a male thus making the circumcision theory somewhat obsolete. This is also a good reason why God commanded that the women and children be killed in Canaan and why Israelite men were not allowed to marry foreign women. I also recall in one of the prophetical books (after the Babylonian exile) the men were told to send their foreign wives away, and they did.

Who knows? This debate could go on forever, one could cover any situation to favor either argument. The enemy would likely have tried both avenues, male and female nephilim, and the enemy, crafty as he is, could have simply had the males circumcised. Or not. It's a tricky situation, and one that I can't confirm or deny. We do see that circumcision already has multiple possible purposes, I don't think that preventing the spread of nephilim was the main reason, but it could have been ONE reason. To rely on circumcision alone to prevent nephilim infiltration would not have been a good idea.

Points to Hopeful for the theory and thinking outside of the box. I know I didn't answer the question definitively, but I don't think it can be answered without knowing more about the nephilim and their practices.

God bless.



UPDATE 4/16/2012


Now, for an intelligent look at circumcision. I'll be listening soon, but it's Dr. Michael Heiser on circumcision, so it's a huge leap beyond what I've got.

http://nakedbiblepodcast.podbean.com/mf/feed/68g6d/NakedBiblePodcast0052012Baptism5.mp3