Hilda Scott, from The Holy Script site, posted an article titled Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From?
The immediately important key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Scott usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Those questions are key since, for example, Scott begins by noting, “Most of us are familiar with the term ‘giants’ in the context of the Bible, since they are mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments” but we’re forced to guess to what, to whom, he’s referring much less whereabouts whatever giants are can be found in the NT.
She notes, “The word ‘giant’ is derived from the Latin word ‘gigentes’, which means ‘terrifying monsters with great strength’. These giants were believed to have been descendants of the Nephilim, the offspring of the union between the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4. According to tradition, the Nephilim were not just ordinary humans, but superhuman creatures with immense power.”
It’s also noteworthy that the word “giant” is derived from the Greek word “gigantes,” which means “earth-born.” Since she didn’t cite anything, I unsure what she was quoting regarding the Latin.
Now, as for the second key question, she noted, “giants were believed to have been descendants of the Nephilim” but I’m unsure who that would have been although sure, there were surely such personages around—strictly pre-flood, of course.
As for, “immense power” well, I suppose one could get that from the Biblical statement, “mightly.”
Now, since she defined, “giant” as per Gen 6:2-4 (only v. 4 refers to them) then by, “giants” she means, “Nephilim.” This actually is half of the answer to the first key question: in the Bibles which employ that English word it’s merely rendering, not even translating, “Nephilim” in two verses and/but, “Rephaim” in 98% of all other verses—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Hilda Scott then notes, “These giants were thought to have inhabited Canaan and other areas of the Promised Land. As related in Numbers 13:31-33 and Joshua 14:1-15, the spies that Moses sent to survey the land before the Entry of the Israelites noticed that the land was populated by an unusually large number of intimidating peoples. Of particular note were the descendants of Anak, who were described as ‘giants.’”
Well, that is actually a case of watering things down in order to make them seem to fit so let’s review:
“were thought to” by whom?
“inhabited Canaan and other areas of the Promised Land” that’s impossible since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
“As related in Numbers 13:31-33” which is just an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe them.
“and Joshua 14:1-15” there’s not a single word about Nephilim in that text.
“the spies that Moses sent” is too generic since it was the 10 unreliable ones who merely asserted that.
“descendants of Anak, who were described as ‘giants’” well, to say that they were described as such is part of the incoherent tall-tale—and it means, “were described as Nephilim” since they were fallaciously correlated to them.
Scott then tells us, “The incident of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 provides further evidence of the existence of giants in the land.” Yet, he was a Repha, not a Nephil—nor could he have been, so that’s a non issue.
Moreover, “The Philistine giant Goliath is described as being ‘six cubits and a span’ in height, which is equivalent to around nine feet today.” Keep in mind that as per Scott’s definition, “The Philistine giant Goliath” reads as, “The Philistine Nephilim Goliath” but, again, there’s zero indication of that.
As for, “around nine feet” well, I’m unsure what that has to do with anything but that’s as per the Masoretic Text but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Hilda Scott then asks and answers, “Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From”—even though she already told us—“The giants also featured prominently in the books of Joshua and Ezekiel” but there’s no indication of any such thing. Okay, let’s get this out in the open: it’s pretty obvious that Scott offered us a definition of, “giants” as a mere reference to, “Nephilim” but has shifted her usage without telling us to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height.
So then we are being given the homework of attempting to figure out what she’s talking about with any given usage which is just not the right thing to do to one’s readers. For example, translating her with this in mind, the assertion was, “The subjectively unusually tall personages also featured prominently in the books of Joshua and Ezekiel.”
Example one is Joshua 13:12’s reference to, “Og and Sihon, both of whom were referred to as ‘giants’” but 1) Scott doesn’t seem to realize that it means, “who were referred to as ‘Rephaim,’” 2) we don’t have a physical description of either of them and 3) even with the misusage of, “giants” as meaning subjectively unusually tall so merely jump to the conclusion that someone who is referred to as a giant must have been subjectively unusually tall regardless of genre, context, etc., is a word-concept fallacy.
We then come to, “giants” (whatever that means) in the NT, “In the New Testament, Jesus mentions the giants as a warning to his followers not to fear their enemies or be afraid of their own shortcomings (Matthew 16:18). He also speaks of the giants as a reference to people’s capacity to overcome whatever challenge they may face (Mark 8:36).”
We now have to do more homework so here are the actual quotations:
Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it.”
Mark 8:36, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”
What those have to do with Nephilim or Rephaim or subjectively unusual height is certain mysterious—I’m getting the feeling that the article was the result of an AI word generator farm.
Scott then tells us, “we may never really know the true origin of giants in the Bible” but she already told us about the origins of Nephilim, Rephaim originated form their parents, and subjectively unusually tall people are just subjectively unusually tall—due to better nutrition, a pituitary gland issue, etc.
We’re generically told, “While some” unnamed, “believe that the Sons of God were human kings or rulers, others consider them to be angels, who descended to earth and intermingled with human women.” The, “human kings or rulers” view might be ancient but it’s historically virtually unknown and it’s incoherent since there’s not a single word in the whole Bible about there being anything wrong with kings or rulers marrying hoi polloi—commoners. That is what the view is but there’s no indication that there was anything wrong with that, much less wrong enough to result in the flood.
Another reason I suspect this was an AI article is that it’s tragically repetitive: I’m sparing you most of that—as well as being generic and anachronistic.
Scott, or the AI, tells us, “Some,” somebodies, “believe that the Nephilim were descendants of the wicked nations that existed pre-Flood, such as the people of Canaan and other ancient tribes.” Well, that’s literally impossible since, “the people of Canaan” didn’t even exist until centuries post-flood, and neither did Canaan as the name of a region.
Hilda Scott-AI then tell us that, “their extraordinary size and strength remain evidence of their tremendous power” but the only reference to their, “extraordinary size” is one sentence from an evil report that no one should believe.
Yet, we’re told, “There are several explanations for why the Nephilim were so physically large…bigger and stronger than humans…much larger size” but this is a literal non-issue.
For some out-of-left-field reason, we’re told, “Nephilim were actually significant in terms of innovation, particularly in terms of technology and science.”
It’s then asserted, “Archaeological evidence suggests that the Nephilim existed in many regions around the world…The Nephilim were also credited with introducing new and unique methods of construction, medicine, and even weapons…Nephilim were credited with building the Great Pyramid at Giza” but since we’re give zero citations we can merely dismiss those are tall-tale: for example, what, “Archaeological evidence” is there of pre-flood personages for whom we’ve no reliable physical description?
At this point, I’m disinterested in continuing to read merely watered down assertions such as, “Christianity, believed that the Nephilim were a blessing to humanity…even regarded as divinely inspired”: having familiarized myself with over two millennia of relevant data (with which I wrote my dozen, or so, Nephilology book) I can tell you that literally no one has ever claimed such a thing—although, the innerwebs is a big place so I grant so someone in some blog might have made such a mere assertion.
Scott/AI then noted, “the origin of giants in the Bible remains a mystery” so you see how such artificial articles loop round and round and round.
We’re then, generically, told of, “The phenomenon of giants…Evidence of giant populations…superhuman creatures…giants on earth…giants are descendants of aliens…giants of the Bible remain an enigma” and on and on and on the vagaries go.
Round we go again with, “Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From…Biological Aspects of the Giants…giants are described as having superhuman strength – possibly due to the fact that they had twice the amount of DNA than an average human” with zero indication of whence came that merely asserted supposed, “fact.”
More tall-tales follow with, “hurling large boulders” and then a reference to, “In light of this evidence” which is utterly detached from the article since it presented no evidence but merely generic assertions.
On it goes with, “incredible strength and size….Their physical might…” and so we come to the end of what the future of Nephilology holds: circular assertions repeated over and over again lacking citations and based on watered down vague, AI generated, statements.
FYI: Hilda Scott is described as, “an avid explorer of the Bible and inteprator [sic.] of its gospel. She is passionate about researching and uncovering the mysteries that lie in this sacred book. She hopes to use her knowledge and expertise to bring faith and God closer to people all around the world.” If such is the case, she needs to stop (allegedly) relying of AI and do some serious and seriously detailed research and writing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply