The Nephilim in the Old Testament were the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4. Many early translations of the OT, as well as the King James version, preferred to translate the original Hebrew word as ‘giants’.
The World Heritage Encyclopedia offers a range of theories regarding the etymology of the word(a). Wikipedia has further background information on the subject(c).
In more recent times it was the work of the late Zechariah Sitchin that revived interest in the Nephilim, the Anunnaki and the existence of extraterrestrial visitors in ancient times. Unlike the more than dubious claims of Erich von Däniken, Sitchin’s ideas appeared to have a more reliable scientific foundation. However, this foundation was composed of Sitchin’s own interpretation of Sumerian texts, which has been heavily criticised(b).
In 2019, Ryan Pitterson, tried to revive the idea of a connection between Atlantis and the biblical Nephilim, but failed miserably. He is the author of Judgement of the Nephilim , which he claims to be “the first comprehensive biblical study of the nephilim.” Promotional interviews for the book gave him his fifteen minutes of fame, which is more than this book deserves.
>Petros Koutouplis has also published a paper on Graham Hancock’s website, in which he investigates the biblical origins of the Nephilim and the possibility that they were ‘giants’, based on the evidence of the language of the Bible(d).<
Father Sergio is presumably a pen-name of the author of a short book, The Legend of Atlantis.This offering is just a mish-mash of quotes from the Old Testament and Edgar Cayce, placing Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the Azores. He also cites the highly dubious claims of the late Ray Brown. I think it a good idea that the author kept his identity a secret.
Ambiguities and Contradictions are to be found in Plato’s Atlantis texts. Similar difficulties can be found in other documents that originated in the same period. Readers may be familiar with the discrepancies and apparent contradictions that are to be found throughout the Old Testament. Most of these difficulties stem from the fact that these texts were written in archaic languages that are still not totally understood and where the original text are no longer extant. In addition, these original have been translated into other languages that often included translation and transcription errors. These problems are often more apparent than real.
All these factors have led to most ancient writings being the subject of extensive debates. Plato’s work is no exception. The greatest controversy has arisen regarding the location of Atlantis with the focus on the position of the Pillars of Heracles. Until relatively recently the accepted wisdom was that the ‘Pillars’ could only have been at the Strait of Gibraltar. However, writers such as Eberhard Zangger, Anton Mifsud, Sergio Frau and many others have offered equally legitimate alternative locations for the ‘Pillars’, leading to a broadening of the debate on the location of Atlantis itself.
Another subject that receives ongoing heated discussion is the date of Atlantis’ destruction. Although Plato states that the war occurred 9,000 years before Solon’s Egyptian visit and that Atlantis was destroyed ‘afterwards’. It is clear that such an early date is incompatible with the Bronze Age society, which he so clearly describes and is quite definitely in conflict with the archaeological evidence, which denies the existence of structured societies in either Egypt or Greece at that time.
Other matters that continue to generate controversy are the size of Atlantis, whether Atlantis was a continent, an island or a peninsula and what will surprise many people, the exact location of Plato’s ‘Atlantic Ocean’. Another example is Plato’s consistent reference to Atlantis as an island, yet he twice mentions that part of North Africa and southern Italy, that are clearly not islands, were part of Atlantis.
These arguments usually arise because of the limitations of the developing Greek language and their numerical notation, as they existed at the time of Solon and Plato.
The result is that if you have, say, three proposed locations for Plato’s ‘Atlantic Sea’, six or more locations for the ‘Pillars’, various identifications of the ‘continent’ referred to, as well as debates regarding the size of Atlantis and it is obvious why there is such a multiplicity of Atlantis theories. Apart from which, Plato’s date for the Atlantean War of 9,600 BC seems to conflict with both archaeology and reason adding additional confusion and yet more theories. Other details, such the identity of the Atlanteans, have only compounded matters further.
The Holy Land is a term used to refer to that part of the eastern Mediterranean which the Old Testament records as having been given to the Israelites by God. It is now comprised of Israel, Palestinian territory, along with parts of Jordan and Lebanon.
The Holy Land was suggested by Serranus (Jean de Serres) in 1570 as the location of Atlantis. This idea was later echoed by Gerardus Johannis Vossius and Carl Fredrich Baër who was Swedish, but lived in France during the 18th century. Another Swede, Johannes Eurenius also placed Atlantis in Holy Land in his 1751 book. Another 18th century scholar, Jacques Julien Bonnaud was of the opinion that when Plato wrote about Atlantis, he was imperfectly describing the Holy Land! His book, Hérodote historien du peuple hébreu sans le savoir is available as a free ebook(a).
In recent times a more radical view has been proposed by Professor Jaime Manuschevich who has identified modern Israel together the Sinai Peninsula as the true site of Atlantis.