Where Do Demons Come From? ~ Michael S Heiser



Everyone familiar with the Bible knows it talks about angels and demons. But most would be surprised to learn that there’s no verse in the Bible that explains where demons came from. Christians typically assume that demons are fallen angels, cast from heaven with Satan (the Devil) right before the temptation of Adam and Eve. But guess what? There’s no such story in the Bible. The only description of anything like that is in Revelation 12:9—but the occasion for that whole episode was the birth of the messiah (Rev 12:4-6), an event long after Adam and Eve. The idea of a primeval fall of angels actually comes from church tradition and the great English poet John Milton in his epic Paradise Lost.

Continued at the link above

Genesis and Creation (Part 1) – M Heiser, PhD – YouTube


Published on Jan 22, 2014
Michael Heiser (Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison) walks through the first three verses of Genesis 1, and discusses biblically possible views of creation, especially focusing on Hebrew syntax. Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Standard YouTube License

Where did ‘lucifer’ originate? Updated 12/04

Seems a pertinent question with so much talk of who is really who and what is what amongst ‘new age’ discussions.  For instance, what is the difference between “lucifer” and “satan”? Is there any difference? We heard or read way back that it (“lucifer”) was a reference to the planet Venus amongst other things. We wanted to know for definite so we went off to research.  One thing for sure, we’d rather be armed with facts than follow woo-woo from folks living off donations from the gullible who are either easily led, too lazy to look for themselves or who are discouraged from asking relevant questions by these woo-woo spreaders.  Give us sources we can check, please!
This is one article from the blogosphere that addresses the actual origins of the word “lucifer”.  We might add to this as and when time allows.

Btw, “lucifer” comes from Latin.   This article also addresses “satan”.

Here’s another:


And an academic paper to get your teeth into.


Update 10/04/15 to include:


Samael is a major demon in Jewish demon lore and Christian demonology. He also plays important roles within occultism. He is credited as being in the heavenly hierarchies as well as being among the fallen angels. In the Chronicles of Jerahmeel Samael is described as being “chief of the Satans.” Even though this work depicted him as being one of the most wickest angels, he is nevertheless said to be an angel in the service of the Lord.

The evil side of Samael is depicted in Jewish lore. He is the angel of death, and collector of Moses’ soul. In the Haggadah Samael is the guardian of Jacob’s brother Esau. This presents Samael as a wicked angel because Esau is wicked only thinking of worldly things and drawn to worship in places of idolatry. Samael in the Zohar is associated with Amalek, the god of the physical world. The text describes Samael as Amalek’s occult name. The Zohar describes Samael as meaning “poison of God.” A. E. Waite in his work The Holy Kabbalah defines Samael as the “severity of God” and also equates him with Satan and the Serpent, Lilith being his bride. In Moncure Daniel Conway’s Demonology and Devil-Lore, Samael, functioning as the left hand of God, is consort of both the voluptuous maiden Naamah and the arch-she-devil Lilith.

Lynn Picknett ~ Lucifer Revised – YouTube

Interview on Red Ice Radio

Sitchin’s ‘Anunnaki’ and ‘Niburu’ debunked ~ updated 9/9/2016

From M Heiser ~

The Anunnaki

As I noted in my open letter to Zecharia Sitchin, I have challenged him and other ancient astronaut researchers to produce one line of one cuneiform text that demonstrates his ideas about the Anunnaki are really in the Sumerian texts. I want to see one line of one text that says things like the Anunnaki inhabit a planet or inhabit Nibiru, or that the term “Anunnaki” means “people of the fiery rockets, that sort of thing.

Now, I could drone on about Mr. Sitchin’s bogus translations and understanding of the Anunnaki, but I thought of something much better. You don’t need to take my word for any of this. The Sumerian texts are online in English translation and are searchable — even by Sumerian word! I invite you — no, I challenge you — to click on the link below and watch me search the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature right before your eyes for the Sumerian word “Anunnaki.”





Those familiar with either the writings of Zecharia Sitchin or the current internet rantings about “the return of Planet X” are likely familiar with the word “nibiru”. According to self-proclaimed ancient languages scholar Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerians knew of an extra planet beyond Pluto. This extra planet was called Nibiru. Sitchin goes on to claim that Nibiru passes through our solar system every 3600 years. Some believers in Sitchin’s theory also refer to Nibiru as “Planet X”, the name given to a planet that is allegedly located within our solar system but beyond Pluto. Adherents to the “returning Planet X hypothesis” believe the return of this wandering planet will bring cataclysmic consequences to earth.

Is Sitchin correct – Is Nibiru a 12th planet that passes through our solar system every 3600 years? Did the Sumerians know this? Unfortunately for Sitchin and his followers, the answer to each of these questions is no. But how do I know? ………. Cont’d…..

Sumerian Mythology

Updated 9/9/2016 to include:

See also Niburu – Cosmophobia


Nibiru was not predicted for 2012

Here’s the big clincher; Sitchin’s original prediction of the appearance of Nibiru did not coincide with the 2012 date! According to Sitchin, Nibiru is not due to return until 2900! (Though he did say that the Annunaki might return by spaceship when the Age of Pisces moved to the Age of Aquarius sometime after 2090). So Sitchin doesn’t agree with the 2012ers! ( Or at least he didn’t until he started making money off of it; in the months leading to his death in 2010, he went somewhat quiet on the subject).

Giants ~ Excerpt re ‘Anakim’ from Article by Peter Chattaway



I.c. Anakim

The “descendants of Anak” are first mentioned in Numbers 13, when the Hebrew spies investigate the Promised Land of Canaan and return to discourage the other Hebrews from entering it. The Anakim are associated with the Nephilim from the beginning (Numbers 13:33), and they are later equated with the Rephaim, too (Deuteronomy 2:11). They are consistently described as “strong and tall”, and their cities as “large, with walls up to the sky” (e.g., Deuteronomy 1:28).

Despite this reference to “cities” in the plural, most geographic references to the Anakim before the Israelite invasion place them simply in Kiriath Arba, later known as Hebron, where it is said that three particular “descendants” or “sons” of Anak lived: Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai. They are said to have lived in Hebron when the spies arrived, and were still there 38 years later when Joshua and Caleb, the only survivors from the original group of spies, returned to drive them out (Numbers 13:22; Joshua 11:21, 15:14; Judges 1:20). However, Joshua 11:21-22 does credit the Anakim with control of a much wider territory, extending to the cities of Debir and Anab and “all the hill country of Judah, and … Israel.” One other Anakite is named in the biblical text: Arba, after whom Kiriath Arba was supposedly named. He is referred to as both “the forefather of Anak” (Joshua 15:13, 21:11) or “the greatest man among the Anakites” (Joshua 14:15). This aetiology provides no further details, and it has been suggested that, since arba is the word for “four”, Kiriath Arba originally meant “City of Four”, possibly referring to the four other names associated with the town: Ahiman, Sheshai, Talmai, and Anak himself (Graves & Patai, p. 107).

Although the biblical text states that Caleb drove the Anakim out of Hebron (Joshua 14:12, 15:14; Judges 1:20), Joshua is also credited with this feat in the larger context of driving them out of the hill country (Joshua 11:21). All references to the Anakim by that name are limited to four books: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges. There is no clear record of the Anakim after the Israelite invasion, but since a remnant survived in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Joshua 11:22), it is probably safe to assume that they were assimilated into the culture of the Philistines, who were just beginning to settle in that area. These three cities went on to play a central role in Philistine politics, and Gath has already been noted for its connection to the giants. These Anakim have already been equated with the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:11), so they were no doubt understood to be the same as the “descendants of Rapha” who worked out of Philistine Gath in II Samuel 21:22.

II. Historical Background to the Giants

While legends of giants often sound overly fantastic, individuals of unusually tall stature are a recorded phenomenon. The key difference between fact and legend is that, by modern medical standards, giantism is normally regarded as a disease or something similarly unhealthy; the chances of an abnormally tall person having a body sturdy enough to pose a serious threat on the battlefield is somewhat unlikely.

Then again, “tall” is a relative measurement. Generally speaking, some races can be said to be taller or shorter than others, and it is possible that the Israelites were confronted with an enemy people (or peoples) that was, on the average, taller than the Israelites were. Given the popular but by no means proven belief that the Philistines came from the Aegean, some have noted the “fairly tall stature” of skeletons from the Minoan culture in Crete and sought to establish a connection between the Cretans and the Philistine giants (cf. Dothan & Dothan, p. 112).

Such efforts have their roots in the authors of antiquity, who speak of the bones of past heroes and villains that were still on display for others to see. Josephus wrote that one could see the bones of the Anakim “to this very day, unlike to any creditable relations of other men” (Antiquities 5.126). Cimon is said to have recognized the bones of Theseus on the isle of Scyros by their enormous size (Plutarch, Theseus 38), and Pausanias in his Guide to Greece speaks of two separate caches of giants’ bones that one may visit in Arkadia (8.29.4, 8.32.5).

Only two giants are actually given exact heights in the biblical accounts, and while the figures show evidence of exaggeration, neither case is wholly implausible. In a somewhat unnecessary move, Wiseman supports the plausibility of Goliath’s height (“six cubits and a span”, corresponding to about 3 metres or 9 feet, according to most translations of I Samuel 17:4) by citing anonymous skeletons with heights of up to 3.2 metres that he says have been found in Syro-Palestine; however, he does not cite any particular studies to support this claim (pp. 23, 244 n. 58). In any case, the textual evidence suggests that Goliath, while a giant, was originally somewhat shorter than the height given in most versions of the Bible today. While the Masoretic Text and certain editions of the Septuagint do give Goliath’s height as “six cubits and a span”, Josephus (Antiquities 6.171) and a Dead Sea Scroll fragment known as 4QSama both give his height as “four cubits and a span”, as do certain other editions of the Septuagint (McCarter, p. 286). One would certainly not expect copyists to downplay the challenge faced and won by David, thus it seems that Goliath was, in fact, closer to six feet nine inches tall, “a true giant in an age when a man well under six feet might be considered tall” (McCarter, p. 291). The only other giant for whom we are given an exact height is Benaiah’s Egyptian victim, who was five cubits tall (roughly 2.3 metres) according to I Chronicles 11:23, though this would appear to be a gloss on the heightless account in II Samuel 23:21; in any case, such a height is plausible, if remotely so. (We are also given the impressive length of Og’s bed, but for Og himself no exact height is given.)

Giantism is not the only medical anomaly suggested to explain the giant stories. The Hebrew word anaq can mean “necklace”, as in Proverbs 1:9, and it has been suggested that the Anakim (anaqim) were people with “grossly enlarged necks due to endemic goiter”, which would have resembled great puffy “necklaces”. Sussman (ABD 6.13) finds this explanation unlikely, since there is no evidence for a widespread condition of this sort in the ancient Middle East, though he notes that “the pituitary abnormalities associated with giantism and acromegaly are, in fact, associated with goiter. It may be that our texts give a clue to accurate observation” (ibid.). Mattingly (ABD 1.222) has also suggested a connection between anaq and the Anakim, though for him anaq would indicate a “long-necked” people, and thus the giants.

Many other explanations exist for the name of the Anakim. Moshe Dothan, an excavator with years of experience on the Philistine sites, has sought to equate the Anakim with the early Aegean settlers on linguistic and archaeological grounds. Between the Canaanite and Philistine layers at Ashdod (one of the Anakite cities in Joshua 11:22), he discovered evidence of a Mycenaean settlement that pre-dated the later Philistine culture. Dothan thus called these early settlers Anakim, “taking [his] cue from the Bible” (Dothan & Dothan, p. 169). Dothan’s hypothesis for the origin of the name itself is that “Anak” or “Anakim” may be derived from the Greek “Wanax”, which he describes as “a generic name for the king or head of a community or of tribes.” He says the one major difficulty with his theory is that “it is not so easy to transform the Greek omega and make it an ‘ayin in Hebrew in this period” (Dothan, in Shanks, p. 47). Another problem may be that all the biblical references to the Anakim occur well before the Israelites encounter the Philistines; as we have seen, the only explicit references to a race of giants fighting for the Philistines refer to them as Rephaim or “descendants of Rapha”.

more at the link including references and sources.


See also ‘Michael Heiser’ posts

Sumerian Literature Origins and Proper Nouns



NB this

The corpus
The bulk of the compositions in the corpus are, however, written on tablets that date to the 18th century, with many coming from the city of Nibru, the religious centre of Sumer.

Remind anyone of anything?


No ‘Niburu’ !!!

And no ‘Annunaki’ or  ‘Anunaki

Dr Michael Heiser – Gnostic Archons (updated 2)




From my own studies of the NHL (even if somewhat limited) I know that John Lamb Lash was wrong when he described the Archons as ’embryonic’ and then equated them to ‘Alien Greys’ in his work Not in His Image. Here JLL refers to them again that way :http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_archons02.htm

Why would he do that? Was it accidental or intentional? ETs and Aliens are in the news at the moment both in the main-stream and alternative.  Someone puts the idea or suggestion out there either innocently or not and it sprouts legs and gallops off around the world! 🙂

For the record AEONS are described as embryonic!

Another reminder to stop following blindly!

NHL available to read on line:


Related background to JLL and his early marriage to Jan Kerouac


See also



http://biblehub.com/greek/758.htm  ~ Strong’s Greek definition of ‘Archon’

archón: ruler, chief
Original Word: ἄρχων, οντος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: archón
Phonetic Spelling: (ar’-khone)
Short Definition: a ruler, prince, leader
Definition: a ruler, governor, leader, leading man; with the Jews, an official member (a member of the executive) of the assembly of elders.

See also

Gnostic Archons = Aliens?
Posted on June 20, 2008
Ah, our first foray into the weird, wonderful world of John Lamb Lash. For those of you unfamiliar with Lash, he is a modern Gnostic. No, I’m not going to pick on Gnosticism. I am going to pick on Lash’s Gnostic nonsense at a specific point.”


see also comments section.

(more to add to this)


Gnostic Archons = Aliens? Part 2 on John Lamb Lash’s Theory

At any rate, in my first post on this topic, I quoted John Lamb Lash’s online article on this subject. Specifically, Lash makes this claim:

“Physical descriptions of Archons occur in several Gnostic codices. Two types are clearly identified: a neonate or embryonic type, and a draconic or reptilian type. Obviously, these descriptions fit the Greys and Reptilians of contemporary reports to a T. Or I should say, to an ET” (emphasis mine).

Really? Can we test this claim? Sure – and it’s easy.”




Gnostic Archons = Aliens? Part 3 (of 3) on John Lamb Lash’s Theory

….As you may recall, in the first video (Part 2 of this series), I searched for terms Lash uses (embryonic, reptilian, fetal, etc.) to claim that the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi describe the “Greys” — the little Grey aliens we know from TV and film that have big heads, slanted eyes, etc. The argument is that the Greys’ appearance is consistent with terms like those Lash allegedly finds for the Gnostic archons in the Gnostic texts. Watch the first video if you want to see what’s really there (or not there).

In this video, I reverse the approach and look for all occurrences of the term “archons” in the Gnostic library from Nag Hammadi. Are they described as Lash suggests? Nope. And more than that, I’ll actually show you a passage that denies Lash’s view.


See also comments


And there’s an interesting dialogue in the comments here between Michael Heiser and John Lamb Lash:-



© think-and-discern.com 2014