The Biblical Archaeology Society published an article titled The Nephilim and the Sons of God by a certain John Drummond who quotes Genesis 6:1–4 thusly:
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 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 bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Interestingly, Drummond notes, “Though centuries of rabbinical and church tradition would say otherwise, the audience to whom the text was intended would have understood the ‘sons of God’ to be the members of the divine assembly mentioned throughout the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible (see Job 6:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 82). In the biblical texts, the ‘sons of God’ are usually described as lesser heavenly beings in the service of the Most High.”
I say interestingly since the reverse appears to be the case but then again, it’s unknown to when, “Through centuries” refers. As per the earliest relevant centuries: the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
John Drummond asserts that the word Nephilim, “translated means something to the effect of ‘ancient champions who made a name for themselves” but that’s not the word, that a combination of when they lived and what is said about them: pre-flood being ancient and that they are were mighty men who were of old, the men of renown being the, “champions who made a name for themselves” part. The word itself has its roots in naphal: fall/fallen/to fall/to cause to fall, etc.
Drummond notes, “Every society has myths and legends about gods having children with humans who become epic heroes and legendary kings…Readers of the Bible will be quick to point out the obvious problems with the Israelites’ enjoying the epic tales of demigods’ slaying monsters—they glorify a pagan culture filled with a slew of gods and goddesses…Instead of denying the existence of famous heroes altogether, the author labels them ‘the fallen ones’ and all but blames them for the utter depravity that fell upon the world and necessitated the flood…Just after the flood, in Babel (Babylon)…human beings decided to band together and build a tower to heaven to make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:1–9). Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim? We can only speculate.”
Now, John Drummond goes on to merely assert, “The legacy of the Nephilim did not end with the flood, however, as the biblical texts go on to attribute them as the ancestors of some of the Israelites’ most feared enemies (Numbers 13:33).”
I say assert even though he threw is an unelucidated citation to one sentence because he threw is an unelucidated citation to one sentence.
Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.
This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).
I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, “Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.”
But what about that one sentence? Well, that is the mother of all post-flood Nephilim texts—single verse, actually—because it’s the only one. And it’s one sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, the answer to, “Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim?” regarding the Babel-onians is one issue but the 10 were certainly creating their own legends about Nephilim as a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale: see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
When Drummond goes on to write, “Another feared group that was legendary by the time the Israelites settled the land was the Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20, 3:11; Joshua 12:4, 13:12)” he doesn’t seem to be aware that biblically contextually, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants” reads as, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim.”
He further notes, “It’s unknown if the Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim, but it is clear that by the Intertestimental period (the fourth–first centuries B.C.E.) the Nephilim were thought to be the monstrous giant offspring of fallen angels and humans, as described in the pseudographical Book of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as others found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
If, “Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim” it was due to that one sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: who’s one sentence is literally the premise for all un-biblical Nephilology—and especially 100% of modern Nephilology which is neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
As for the Intertestimental period; see my books The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Textsand In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. That is when the 10 guys’ taking the tall-tales up a notch are taken up even more notches since such as who folklore is done—see my How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
Moreover, Drummond notes, “The authors of the Greek Septuagint even chose to use the word gigantes in their translation of Genesis 6, a word that also invokes the monstrous Titans—the legendary giants that were destroyed by the gods in Greek myth. And like the Titans of old, the legend of the Nephilim only continues to grow in modern times.” Very well but he failed to elucidate that gigantes means earth-born (as in born of the false earth goddess Gaia).
But there’s more to the Septuagint’s sorted translating: that was not a translation but merely a rendering and for some unknown reason, those renderers also rendered gibborim and also Rephaim as gigantes (or, gigas: still a reference to Gaia) and it’s a terrible idea to render three very different words with three very different meanings with merely one word.
The article ends by directing us to Jaap Doedens’ paper Biblical Profile: Exploring the Story of the Sons of God wherein it’s noted, “Crucial to the understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 is the question: Who are these ‘sons of God’?…They are either human or non-human….fallen angels, mighty men, descendants of Seth, or divine beings.”
While, “the oldest explanation is that the ‘sons of God’ are angels” and, “The earliest Christian exegetes essentially took over this view. It is around the fourth century C.E. that the tide turns” to, “godly Sethites…who mingle with the daughters of the godless tribe of Cain” so that the Sethites weren’t so godly after all since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure. The Sethite view is not only a late-comer, it’s based on prejudice, on myth, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
It’s notes that (an overwhelming minority: would that be underwhelming?), “Already from the second century C.E. on, Jewish exegesis had also exchanged the angels interpretation for an explanation of the ‘sons of God’ as judges, rulers, or the elite who marry morally inferior women.” Since when does that, which includes the Sethite view, result in worldwide floods anyhow?
Jaap Doedens notes, “an historical kernel of this narrative about marriages of divine beings and human…can possibly be connected to archaeology. Perhaps the presence of megalithic tombs…dolmens…gave rise to tales about fallen giant warriors…This may be one of the functions of the narrative in Genesis 6:1-4.”
But he employed the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” without defining it and correlated it to Gen 6:1-4 in some unstated manner.
And that, in essence, brings an end to the most contextually relevant portions of what John Drummond and Jaap Doedens had to say regarding my focus as a Systematic Biblical Paranormologist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply