![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That the "Sons of God" are fallen angels is not required of the passage, however sensational as that may be. Cross referencing inside Scripture, it seems that the most likely assumption would be that the sons of men would be righteous followers of Yahweh. The well written article would be more thorough with a mention of this alternate interpretation included.
That the Book of the Watchers in Enoch is referring to the same creatures mentioned Genesis 6 is beyond any reasonable doubt, to be honest... -Hrugnir
Some Errata: There is no Verse 9 in Chapter 7 of Enoch I. It might be in Enoch II (slavonic) or III (Greek) but for sure it's not in I. Scholars typically only accept I as an "uncorrupted" text as II and III show other elements thrown in. Also, it is of dispute in the scholarly community on whether Enoch was derived from already known scripture or if it was actually used and drawn on by early writers: Language needs to be used to neutralize that part of the article tone.
There is also more items attributed to the angels than what the article depicts, Enoch I provides a great deal of information on this, and though some of it is conflicting, this article shouldn't be reduced but perhaps we should describe the conflicting evidence--at the bare minimun report it completely.
Azazel taught men to make swords, knives, shields and armor. Bracelets and ornaments, as well as the use of antimony. It's important to note, that what we call antimony, is different. The Egyptians called it Kohl, and it indeed was used in cosmetics. This is all detailed in Enoch I Chapter 8:1. Azazel is also responsible for working of precious Gems, coloring and dyes. Apparently learning these trades led men astray, as in verse 2 says that the men went away into impiety.
Verse 3 names Semjaza (Spells, root-cutting) Armaros (counter-spells) Baraqiajal (Astrology—of great importance to persians and Zoroastrianism, the father of Judaism and Christianity.) Araqiel taught the signs of the earth, Shamsiel signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon, Kokabel the constellations, (astrology again?) and Ezeqeel the clouds.
The fact that there are two angels dealing with astrology, I think this definitely places historic importance on these names being placed more towards mesopotamia, though I'm not an expert on Mesopotamian mythology.
--XeNO
Source: "The Lost Book of Enoch" by Joseph B. Lumpkin
This page is in real need of footnotes. There are several passages that calim to be from Leland's Aradia. It would be tremendous if corresponding page numbers could be put in. Likewise, the article claims that Gardner wrote about the Watchers, but it doesn't state the name of the book, much less any specific reference. Without such references, the phrasing claims authority but does not actually offer any, which can be very misleading to readers. (I personally don't know if the claims are accurate, otherwise I would put in the page numbers myself. It's one of the reasons I'm looking for page numbers!) Nightwind2 ( talk) 07:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"metal weapons, cosmetics, and other necessities of civilization"
I just don't know how I'd survive without my metal weapons and cosmetics. Misodoctakleidist ( talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the word "grigori" used in this article for the Watchers? What is the source of this word? It is not the Greek word, nor the Aramaic word, and I don't think the Ethiopic would use it. I propose that we change the word either to "egregoroi" or to "watchers", and then change the title of the article as well. If there is no objection, I will do so. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this page should be moved to "Watcher (spiritual being)". See the discussion above ("The word Grigori"). Basically, "Grigori" is a non-English term (I don't know what language it is), which is not used in the discussions I've seen of the Book of Enoch (which is after all where the Watchers are found). I think we should use the normal English term, which is Watcher. If someone can give us a referenced statement about where the word "Grigori" comes from, we can mention that, but we shouldn't use that term as the primary term. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone mentioned to me that ten Watchers are unaccounted for and, by my understanding of it, she's correct.
There are two hundred Watchers. These are their leaders: "Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl." That's nineteen names.
"These are their chiefs of tens." If I'm understanding this right, and I'm not too familiar with it all, so I may be wrong, but that only adds up to one hundred and ninety. What happened to the other ten? -- Thejadefalcon ( talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The explanation that "a watcher and an holy one" are one being does not satisfy me at all without a citation, as it manifestly controverts the notoriously finicky KJVB translation. I'm removing that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 ( talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That the Mesopotamians had stellar cults, but it's easier to keep track of the sun and moon than four stars so it seems more likely that stellar cults came after solar and lunar cults. Also, I've never encountered this "the four lords" of the stars marking the equinoxes and solstices stuff outside of the article, so I deleted what was (as far as I can tell) unsourced original research. I also deleted an reduntant list of watchers and did a little formatting.
I also rearranged the article from "Book of Enoch" and "References to other Watchers" (more than half of it was about the same group) to "Book of Enoch" and "Other references to the watchers."
The Enochian interpretation of Gen. 6 (which is the most traditional) does regard the sons of god as angels, but there are a variety of viewpoints regarding Gen 6 within Christianity and Judaism. The article tended to reflect the Enochian view.
I deleted the supposed connection between the watchers and the "principalities of the air," since it is not advocated by any particularly notable theologians (but rather someone's interpretation of the writings of the notable theologian Paul). I had to change the lead in in the following paragraph, and I deleted an OR statement that confused the Archons with the Watchers. Also deleted unsourced OR statement regarding Italian witches being involved with the watchers. Just because it is original research does not make it wrong, but it sure doesn't mean it is correct. The stuff deleted was mostly interpretational and if someone notable has written stuff along these lines, then put it in with sources throughout. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If there were 200 angels that fell including the leaders and 1/3rd of the angels fell from Heaven, then by simple mathematical calculation there is a static total of 600 angels that have ever existed. I cannot varify that information anywhere else in scripture. Is 200 symbolic or true count of the fallen? 99.25.82.158 ( talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Espers(Final Fantasy VI/III) & the Jinn (Islam) are basically Nephilim. Just thought I'd share this information. I could write an entire paragraph with citations for both, but I have better things to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerrQuixota ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an error in the first paragraph of this article. It says that Genesis 6:4 does not reveal the nephilim to be hybrid human angels. Lets take a look at the verse...
Genesis 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."
The verse clearly states the angels came in to the human women and produced children with them. I will correct the error. -- Lucius Sempronius Turpio ( talk) 11:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Known ideas of watchers taken from the bible of christians are very hazy and indiscriptive at best. reality however is something completly different. Watchers are no more then souls of man gifted with certain abilities to aid them in God's plan. They live and die then are rebirthed to live again in a different time in a different life. They are gifted sight of many things and God pushes them to maintain the longevity of man kinds time on earth. Time as it were is fragile and can be altered with a single nundge or a passing hello. However man kinds ability to freely choose thier perspective path makes keeping the plan intact tricky at best. God knew that it would take more then angels to give man a chance to prove his/her worth to enter heaven. Watchers were created to be more of a "hands on" type. Going from one life to the next living outside the time line to ensure that it is kept solid. The mission of said watcher is not to save souls; on the contuary, it is to do whatever it takes to give man as much time as possible on earth. There are no texts in cerculation about them save one, and it was sealed away long ago and was later burned in Rome. The text contained a journal of one said watcher who wanted man to know that there was hope. The text described in great detail of what a watcher is and how one comes into ones own as a watcher. It not only described the life and death of watchers but also tells of what pain and agony watchers carry to continue to do Gods work. Watchers are not angels fallen from heaven for God cannot use angels for such deeds. Watchers are capable of wonderful things and also terrible things. They are by heart good and do things for the sake of mankind however one could constrew a watcher's deeds as evil and sinister as some actions are not accepted by mankinds socialy acceptable behaviour. Writing this I know will no doubt be scrutinized and most likely be passed off as herasy or even blasphamy; it is said that you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. In this case I can show you the truth but it is in Gods hands to let you believe. If you take nothing but one thing from this know that he told his chosen souls to carry one message to all the souls they would touch "It is not of gold, silver or the best of stock that I want from my children it is only that they belive in me and know that I love them and know that they will always be welcome in my house on earth and in heaven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 ( talk) 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty slim. Encyclopaedic? In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made huge changes to the main page. I've moved the Watcher's names list to the Fallen angel page to keep this page more balanced and not so heavy on 1 Enoch, even though most references to watchers come from that book. If you disagree with the change, that's fine... I wont counter a contested undo. If anything, please contribute more references to the page as it is in dire need.
Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 04:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi User: Esoglou,
We have to set the record straight as to what a recension is...
Based on your edit from: 16:33, 2 July 2012 Esoglou (talk | contribs) . . (17,954 bytes) (+2,294) . . (→The Grigori: not just Plat or his translation alone) (undo)
These are NOT recensions, less one... Platt's.
A recension is NOT a commentary. Please see Definition of "recension"
Thanks,
Jasonasosa ( talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi User:Esoglou,
Regarding your edit: (cur | prev) 11:08, 3 July 2012 Esoglou (talk | contribs) . . (18,787 bytes) (+3,049) . . (→The Grigori: restored material deleted without adequate explanation) (undo)
Okay, so here is where we are at between both pages Fallen angel and Watcher (angel)... we both keep duplicating the material on both pages. I believe that the content for each page should be more than slightly different. We are both moving in that direction already, because we both agree that the leading intros for the Grigoris on both pages are different. The idea should be to reduce redundancy. Here's how I propose that:
Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 13:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
Elioud (i.e. children of Nephalim) appear in both Enoch 1 and the Book of Jubilees which are the source of the Watchers tradition and are intimately related to the tradition of the Watchers (they are either their grandchildren or great-grandchildren depending upon the reading), and most notably appear in the versions found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are closer to the source than the Ge'ez version for which the most recent available manuscripts are from the 17th century, and the concept (of Nephalim having wicked children) is present in Genesis 6:4. So, reverting an edit to reference them on the grounds that it is a barely related reference found in only a single manuscript is not appropriate. Moreover, the concept is particularly relevant because it goes to what the phrase "son of God" means as used by the Essenes and other Messianic movements in Judiasm at around the time of the dawn of Christianity. It is a little known footnote to the generally understood story of the Nephalim, but an important one that is deeply infused into the story of the Watchers generally as part of the same myth. Ohwilleke ( talk) 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My revision added on 05:43, 20 August 2016 with an alternative explanation (which needs no sources and is there only for the record) was unjustifiably deleted. According to the guidelines, why was this information not allowed to be in the article? An alternative explanation does not need sources if it is a popular opinion, particularly if it is correct. For example, if I were to go to the page on Sasquatch and post several popular opinions on what bigfoot, yeti, etc. actually are, how am I going to source that? I'm not going to link to pseudo-science and conspiracy websites as "evidence," the information is simply there as an alternative explanation that is among the population. Please justify resetting my edit which has accurate and good information that is not necessarily contrary to what is presented in the article? It is not original research or my personal opinion (although it is that too), it is an alternative explanation that can help people understand what the Watchers/nephilim/grigori actually are. How and why should I prove with a source from the internet what can not be proven but only presented as an alternative explanation? What would you like, me to capture a grigori and autopsy its body and prove to you what they actually are? LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8421:C23C:3460:7BED:1271:B486 ( talk)
I suggest referencing the Ophanim ( /info/en/?search=Ophanim ) here, as the Watchers are from this Order.
2601:8A:C180:70:FDEE:5B50:D4CE:5906 ( talk) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That the "Sons of God" are fallen angels is not required of the passage, however sensational as that may be. Cross referencing inside Scripture, it seems that the most likely assumption would be that the sons of men would be righteous followers of Yahweh. The well written article would be more thorough with a mention of this alternate interpretation included.
That the Book of the Watchers in Enoch is referring to the same creatures mentioned Genesis 6 is beyond any reasonable doubt, to be honest... -Hrugnir
Some Errata: There is no Verse 9 in Chapter 7 of Enoch I. It might be in Enoch II (slavonic) or III (Greek) but for sure it's not in I. Scholars typically only accept I as an "uncorrupted" text as II and III show other elements thrown in. Also, it is of dispute in the scholarly community on whether Enoch was derived from already known scripture or if it was actually used and drawn on by early writers: Language needs to be used to neutralize that part of the article tone.
There is also more items attributed to the angels than what the article depicts, Enoch I provides a great deal of information on this, and though some of it is conflicting, this article shouldn't be reduced but perhaps we should describe the conflicting evidence--at the bare minimun report it completely.
Azazel taught men to make swords, knives, shields and armor. Bracelets and ornaments, as well as the use of antimony. It's important to note, that what we call antimony, is different. The Egyptians called it Kohl, and it indeed was used in cosmetics. This is all detailed in Enoch I Chapter 8:1. Azazel is also responsible for working of precious Gems, coloring and dyes. Apparently learning these trades led men astray, as in verse 2 says that the men went away into impiety.
Verse 3 names Semjaza (Spells, root-cutting) Armaros (counter-spells) Baraqiajal (Astrology—of great importance to persians and Zoroastrianism, the father of Judaism and Christianity.) Araqiel taught the signs of the earth, Shamsiel signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon, Kokabel the constellations, (astrology again?) and Ezeqeel the clouds.
The fact that there are two angels dealing with astrology, I think this definitely places historic importance on these names being placed more towards mesopotamia, though I'm not an expert on Mesopotamian mythology.
--XeNO
Source: "The Lost Book of Enoch" by Joseph B. Lumpkin
This page is in real need of footnotes. There are several passages that calim to be from Leland's Aradia. It would be tremendous if corresponding page numbers could be put in. Likewise, the article claims that Gardner wrote about the Watchers, but it doesn't state the name of the book, much less any specific reference. Without such references, the phrasing claims authority but does not actually offer any, which can be very misleading to readers. (I personally don't know if the claims are accurate, otherwise I would put in the page numbers myself. It's one of the reasons I'm looking for page numbers!) Nightwind2 ( talk) 07:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"metal weapons, cosmetics, and other necessities of civilization"
I just don't know how I'd survive without my metal weapons and cosmetics. Misodoctakleidist ( talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the word "grigori" used in this article for the Watchers? What is the source of this word? It is not the Greek word, nor the Aramaic word, and I don't think the Ethiopic would use it. I propose that we change the word either to "egregoroi" or to "watchers", and then change the title of the article as well. If there is no objection, I will do so. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this page should be moved to "Watcher (spiritual being)". See the discussion above ("The word Grigori"). Basically, "Grigori" is a non-English term (I don't know what language it is), which is not used in the discussions I've seen of the Book of Enoch (which is after all where the Watchers are found). I think we should use the normal English term, which is Watcher. If someone can give us a referenced statement about where the word "Grigori" comes from, we can mention that, but we shouldn't use that term as the primary term. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 15:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone mentioned to me that ten Watchers are unaccounted for and, by my understanding of it, she's correct.
There are two hundred Watchers. These are their leaders: "Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl." That's nineteen names.
"These are their chiefs of tens." If I'm understanding this right, and I'm not too familiar with it all, so I may be wrong, but that only adds up to one hundred and ninety. What happened to the other ten? -- Thejadefalcon ( talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The explanation that "a watcher and an holy one" are one being does not satisfy me at all without a citation, as it manifestly controverts the notoriously finicky KJVB translation. I'm removing that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 ( talk) 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That the Mesopotamians had stellar cults, but it's easier to keep track of the sun and moon than four stars so it seems more likely that stellar cults came after solar and lunar cults. Also, I've never encountered this "the four lords" of the stars marking the equinoxes and solstices stuff outside of the article, so I deleted what was (as far as I can tell) unsourced original research. I also deleted an reduntant list of watchers and did a little formatting.
I also rearranged the article from "Book of Enoch" and "References to other Watchers" (more than half of it was about the same group) to "Book of Enoch" and "Other references to the watchers."
The Enochian interpretation of Gen. 6 (which is the most traditional) does regard the sons of god as angels, but there are a variety of viewpoints regarding Gen 6 within Christianity and Judaism. The article tended to reflect the Enochian view.
I deleted the supposed connection between the watchers and the "principalities of the air," since it is not advocated by any particularly notable theologians (but rather someone's interpretation of the writings of the notable theologian Paul). I had to change the lead in in the following paragraph, and I deleted an OR statement that confused the Archons with the Watchers. Also deleted unsourced OR statement regarding Italian witches being involved with the watchers. Just because it is original research does not make it wrong, but it sure doesn't mean it is correct. The stuff deleted was mostly interpretational and if someone notable has written stuff along these lines, then put it in with sources throughout. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If there were 200 angels that fell including the leaders and 1/3rd of the angels fell from Heaven, then by simple mathematical calculation there is a static total of 600 angels that have ever existed. I cannot varify that information anywhere else in scripture. Is 200 symbolic or true count of the fallen? 99.25.82.158 ( talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Espers(Final Fantasy VI/III) & the Jinn (Islam) are basically Nephilim. Just thought I'd share this information. I could write an entire paragraph with citations for both, but I have better things to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerrQuixota ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an error in the first paragraph of this article. It says that Genesis 6:4 does not reveal the nephilim to be hybrid human angels. Lets take a look at the verse...
Genesis 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."
The verse clearly states the angels came in to the human women and produced children with them. I will correct the error. -- Lucius Sempronius Turpio ( talk) 11:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Known ideas of watchers taken from the bible of christians are very hazy and indiscriptive at best. reality however is something completly different. Watchers are no more then souls of man gifted with certain abilities to aid them in God's plan. They live and die then are rebirthed to live again in a different time in a different life. They are gifted sight of many things and God pushes them to maintain the longevity of man kinds time on earth. Time as it were is fragile and can be altered with a single nundge or a passing hello. However man kinds ability to freely choose thier perspective path makes keeping the plan intact tricky at best. God knew that it would take more then angels to give man a chance to prove his/her worth to enter heaven. Watchers were created to be more of a "hands on" type. Going from one life to the next living outside the time line to ensure that it is kept solid. The mission of said watcher is not to save souls; on the contuary, it is to do whatever it takes to give man as much time as possible on earth. There are no texts in cerculation about them save one, and it was sealed away long ago and was later burned in Rome. The text contained a journal of one said watcher who wanted man to know that there was hope. The text described in great detail of what a watcher is and how one comes into ones own as a watcher. It not only described the life and death of watchers but also tells of what pain and agony watchers carry to continue to do Gods work. Watchers are not angels fallen from heaven for God cannot use angels for such deeds. Watchers are capable of wonderful things and also terrible things. They are by heart good and do things for the sake of mankind however one could constrew a watcher's deeds as evil and sinister as some actions are not accepted by mankinds socialy acceptable behaviour. Writing this I know will no doubt be scrutinized and most likely be passed off as herasy or even blasphamy; it is said that you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. In this case I can show you the truth but it is in Gods hands to let you believe. If you take nothing but one thing from this know that he told his chosen souls to carry one message to all the souls they would touch "It is not of gold, silver or the best of stock that I want from my children it is only that they belive in me and know that I love them and know that they will always be welcome in my house on earth and in heaven" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 ( talk) 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty slim. Encyclopaedic? In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made huge changes to the main page. I've moved the Watcher's names list to the Fallen angel page to keep this page more balanced and not so heavy on 1 Enoch, even though most references to watchers come from that book. If you disagree with the change, that's fine... I wont counter a contested undo. If anything, please contribute more references to the page as it is in dire need.
Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 04:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi User: Esoglou,
We have to set the record straight as to what a recension is...
Based on your edit from: 16:33, 2 July 2012 Esoglou (talk | contribs) . . (17,954 bytes) (+2,294) . . (→The Grigori: not just Plat or his translation alone) (undo)
These are NOT recensions, less one... Platt's.
A recension is NOT a commentary. Please see Definition of "recension"
Thanks,
Jasonasosa ( talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi User:Esoglou,
Regarding your edit: (cur | prev) 11:08, 3 July 2012 Esoglou (talk | contribs) . . (18,787 bytes) (+3,049) . . (→The Grigori: restored material deleted without adequate explanation) (undo)
Okay, so here is where we are at between both pages Fallen angel and Watcher (angel)... we both keep duplicating the material on both pages. I believe that the content for each page should be more than slightly different. We are both moving in that direction already, because we both agree that the leading intros for the Grigoris on both pages are different. The idea should be to reduce redundancy. Here's how I propose that:
Thanks, Jasonasosa ( talk) 13:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
Elioud (i.e. children of Nephalim) appear in both Enoch 1 and the Book of Jubilees which are the source of the Watchers tradition and are intimately related to the tradition of the Watchers (they are either their grandchildren or great-grandchildren depending upon the reading), and most notably appear in the versions found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are closer to the source than the Ge'ez version for which the most recent available manuscripts are from the 17th century, and the concept (of Nephalim having wicked children) is present in Genesis 6:4. So, reverting an edit to reference them on the grounds that it is a barely related reference found in only a single manuscript is not appropriate. Moreover, the concept is particularly relevant because it goes to what the phrase "son of God" means as used by the Essenes and other Messianic movements in Judiasm at around the time of the dawn of Christianity. It is a little known footnote to the generally understood story of the Nephalim, but an important one that is deeply infused into the story of the Watchers generally as part of the same myth. Ohwilleke ( talk) 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
My revision added on 05:43, 20 August 2016 with an alternative explanation (which needs no sources and is there only for the record) was unjustifiably deleted. According to the guidelines, why was this information not allowed to be in the article? An alternative explanation does not need sources if it is a popular opinion, particularly if it is correct. For example, if I were to go to the page on Sasquatch and post several popular opinions on what bigfoot, yeti, etc. actually are, how am I going to source that? I'm not going to link to pseudo-science and conspiracy websites as "evidence," the information is simply there as an alternative explanation that is among the population. Please justify resetting my edit which has accurate and good information that is not necessarily contrary to what is presented in the article? It is not original research or my personal opinion (although it is that too), it is an alternative explanation that can help people understand what the Watchers/nephilim/grigori actually are. How and why should I prove with a source from the internet what can not be proven but only presented as an alternative explanation? What would you like, me to capture a grigori and autopsy its body and prove to you what they actually are? LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8421:C23C:3460:7BED:1271:B486 ( talk)
I suggest referencing the Ophanim ( /info/en/?search=Ophanim ) here, as the Watchers are from this Order.
2601:8A:C180:70:FDEE:5B50:D4CE:5906 ( talk) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)