Month: October 2023

In the midst of conducting research for my (as of Oct 2023 AD still unpublished) book Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol II, I read many, many commentaries on Genesis chapters 6-7.

I mostly ignored comments about Genesis 6:1-4 since although those verses are the premise for that which follows, comments about sons of God, Nephilim, etc. were un-contextual to that book.

Yet, I was so struck by Joseph Sutcliffe’s comments that I had to include them as an example of early Nephilology. Granted, given the historical context of commentary having been upon made regarding Nephilim for millennia, this is an example of early-modern, having been published in 1838 AD. This pertains specifically in terms of what un-biblical Nephilology has been all along: valid data points mixed with invalid data points and all strung together via illogical, ill-theo-logical, and ill-bio-logical subjective assertions.

In my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers I traced the lineage, as it were, of that which I term neo-theo-sci-fi Nephilology back to I.D.E. (Isaac David Ellis) Thomas who proposed the key points of which such Nephilology is made: Nephilim were very, very tall, there were post-flood Nephilim, Anakim were related to them (and so somehow ergo, all Rephaim), throw UFOs into the mix and you got yourself a theory. They whom I term the pop-researchers of Nephilology merely repeat Thomas’ assertions—and plump them up with ever increasing doses of sci-fi with time and telling. I know not Thomas’ date of birth, but it was into the 1900s AD.

Well, Sutcliffe deserves some amount of credit for laying the groundwork for un-biblical Nephilology, un-biblical Rephaology, un-biblical giantology, etc. much earlier—all under the guise of commentary upon the Bible.

Hereinafter is what I am to publish regarding Sutcliffe’s comments in my yet to be published book:

Due to his calculation of a cubit, we will have to deal somewhat with his comments on vss. 1-4.

Of sons of God, he notes, “Some understand this expression of Seth’s sons, who intermarried with Cain’s daughters…Others understand it, and with greater propriety, of the sons of great men…Hence the sons of the judges, or great men, seized the daughters of the poor; and rapes, prostitution, and violence were without restraint.”

I am unsure whence he got those specifics and even more unsure of why he follows that directly with, “Being gigantic in stature, and having no regular government, they filled the earth with murder and robbery. All our Saxon chiefs claimed descent from Odin, and all the Greeks from Jupiter…”

I can only imagine that he read the modern English word, “giants” in the version he is consulting and just imagine what that means.

Yet, he may have imagined that spiked by mythology as he continues:

Genesis 6:4. Giants. These the poets call children of the earth, or earth-born, as is the etymon of the Greek γιγαντες. They were men of prodigious stature…Plato mentions this war of the giants or Titanes…Berosus, describes these giants…Rev. W. Ward…has written the history of the Mythology of the Hindoos, in which he says “The giants…”…eighth incarnation of Vishnoo was to destroy the giants. The Hebrews call the giants before the flood the Nephilim or apostates, the Gibborim or mighty men.

 

Those of Palestine are called the Anachim. They were beyond all dispute from nine to ten feet in stature. The origin of pagan fable is founded on facts stated by Moses.

 

Those monsters mocked at the Ark…These are the Rephaim or the dead, who sunk under the waters, and are now associated with all the inhabitants of hell. Job 26:5-6. Proverbs 2:18.

This comment from 1838 seems to be the sort which set the stage for the incoherent neo-theo-sci-fi which Nephilology has become.

It reminds me of pop-researcher Gary Wayne’s (whom I debated: Gary Wayne & Ken Ammi debate Nephilim & Giants) modus operandi which is to quote anything from anyone at any time in history and weave it together into a grand narrative via mere assertions.

They were, “gigantic in stature…Giants…of prodigious stature…giants or Titanes…giants…giants…giants….giants…nine to ten feet in stature.”

The translators of the Greek Septuagint/LXX rendered (did not translate, in this case) Nephilim as γιγαντες-gigantes yet, we know not why. Was it due to what Flavius Josephus puts as, “many angels of God accompanied with women and begat sons…the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants” (Antiquities of the Jews 1.3.72-74).

Yet, it is not a simple as that Titans were called gigantes ergo since gigantes were very tall then Nephilim were very tall.

There are a lot of issues to consider including that there were more than one generation of Titans (if, that is, we can even correlate Titans to Nephilim—a big IF), some having a hundred arms, some having the lower bodies of serpents, etc.

Moreover, it is far too simplistic to merely assert that gigantes is a term used of Titans and (some) Titans very tall ergo, Nephilim were very tall. It is myopic since perhaps if such a correlation was being drawn it was due to Titans and Nephilim both being hybrids or both being tyrannical, etc.

In any case, Sutcliffe then tells us that the Palestinians, “called the Anachim” but just as he merely asserted that Nephilim were giants based on a text that does not even hint at a physical description of them, he merely jumps a timespan of millennia—jumping directly over the flood, not less—to assert as much.

Yet, while Nephilim were offspring of sons of God and daughters of men, Anakim were named after Anak, the son of Arba (Joshua 15:13). Nephilim lived strictly pre-flood, Anakim lived strictly post-flood. On the Angel view: Nephilim were hybrids, Anakim were just good ol’ fashioned humans.

Continuing on with mere assertions, he assures us based on his say so that, “They were beyond all dispute from nine to ten feet in stature.” Yet, we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim at all and contextually, the only physical description we have of Anakim is that they were, “tall” which is subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.

I know not to what he refers by that, “The origin of pagan fable is founded on facts stated by Moses” but perhaps it is a reference to Numbers 13:32-33 which is an “evil report” stated by utterly unreliable man who were unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked.

I could certainly see “pagan fable” being premised upon that since it is therein, and only therein biblically, where we get a physical description of Nephilim having been very, very, very tall.

Yet, fable is all that it was—and that fable serves as the very backbone of neo-Nephilology which is none but neo-theo-sci-fi.

Lastly, Sutcliffe further merely asserts that Nephilim, “are the Rephaim” yet, Rephaim are a strictly post-flood fully human people group: a tribe of which Anakim were a clan.

That they are, “the dead, who sunk under the waters, and are now associated with all the inhabitants of hell” is based on a fallacy which is still very, very common: he fails to distinguish between a word and its root—akin to how some confuse definition or meaning with usage.

The root word repha is notoriously complex but, at the very least, ranges in meaning from dead to heal.

The word Rephaim was, again, used of a people group—which also went by various other regional titles, “Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim…Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim” (Deuteronomy 2:11, 21).

See my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology for an entire chapter just on Rephaim and another just on Anakim.

It seemed to me that all of that needed to be reviewed due to that when Sutcliffe gets to the point of commenting about the ark, he asserts, “Moses gives us here the dimensions of the ark, 300 cubits long, 50 high, and 30 broad; and the cubit of those gigantic men from the elbow to the end of the long finger, could not be less than 30 inches.”

But even if (another big IF) Nephilim and/or Rephaim and/or Anakim were, “gigantic…Giants…of prodigious stature…giants…giants…giants…giants….giants…nine to ten feet in stature,” pray tell, what made Sutcliffe think that Moses was reckoning the a cubit based on their cubit?

He goes on to claim, “Others are of opinion that the antediluvian cubit was reckoned the third part of the stature of those men, who may be supposed to have been at least eight or nine feet high; so that according to these dimensions the ark must have been equal to ten or twelve first-rate ships of war” a, “Prodigious superstructure!”

He notes:

Of its existence, antiquity is agreed. Abydenus, and Berosus a priest of Babylon, and Herodotus have all recorded the fact. Vide Euseb. Præp. lib. 9. c. 11, 12.

Origen in Alexandria, and Jerome at Rome, have rebutted the objections started in their day.

The rest of my chapter about Sutcliffe deals with his comments about the flood.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

This pertains to the article: David Marchese, How to Live a Happy Life From a Leading Atheist, New York Times, Aug. 25, 2023 AD.

The leading Atheist in view is Daniel C. Dennett—one of The Four my Little Ponies of Atheism—about whom Marchese tells us and Dennett is, “perhaps best known” as asserting, “there are no metaphysical mysteries at the heart of human existence, no magic nor God…Instead, it’s science and Darwinian evolution all the way down.”

Now, I’ll point out instantly that we’re told that thus saith Dennett How to Live a Happy Life without a premise: this is a case of one accidentally existing apes dictating to other accidentally existing apes how to live a happy accidental life: without even telling us up against being happy is preferred nor getting into the subjective nature of that concept—much less about that being happy, on Dennett’s worldview, refers to accidentally existing apes emotively subjectively interpreting the accidental byproducts of an accidental mixture of bio-neural-chemicals in our haphazardly evolved brain.

Marchese notes that in a book, Dennett, “traces the development of his worldview, which he is keen to point out is no less full of awe or gratitude than that of those more inclined to the supernatural.”

He quotes Dennett thusly, “I want people to see what a meaningful, happy life I’ve had with these beliefs.” Did you catch the emotively subjective qualifying terms? “I want…” much as if he would declare, “I like…vanilla ice-cream.”

Moreover, Dennett declares, “I don’t need mystery.” Of well, that’s nice—I suppose. Perhaps no one needs a mystery but as far as I know, Dennett isn’t omniscient so need or not, mysteries persist.

Marchese notes, “Right now it seems as if truth is in shambles…” but on Atheism, truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so either.

He then states, “let’s look at epistemology, the theory of knowledge” very well then, let’s. On Atheism engaging in epistemology is a subjective personal preference du jour. Sure, Dennett may, “want” do engage in it but he may also “want” to eat vanilla ice-cream: what of it?

He then wrote of, “fact” but since facts are nuggets of truth based on reality, then on Atheism, facts/truth/reality is/are accidental, as is our ability to discern it/them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it/them, nor to demand that others do so either.

Dennett was asked, “What did you mean by ‘tiny robots’?” and replied, “Each cell is a living agent of its own. It has a sort of agenda: It’s trying to stay alive” and that survival instinct is accidental, on Atheism—boy oh boy, good thing that the very first living thing was accidented with that instinct. Actually, it’s not a, “good thing” on Atheism since, like literally everything else, it just is. If the first living thing didn’t survive and we wouldn’t be there to discuss it then it would matter not.

Moreover, he noted, “It’s got to keep itself a supply of energy to keep going. It’s got a metabolism. It’s the descendant of a long ancestry of free-floating, living cells that had to fend for themselves, and they’ve all joined forces to make a multicellular body. Those are little robots.”

The statistics on life coming from non-life and that life just so happened to have a survival instinct and the ability to keep itself a supply of energy to keep going and a metabolism and actually no ancestry and that it fended for itself but then somehow multiplied and joined forces to make a multicellular body are the stuff of which Atheist cosmogenic—and biogenic—myths are told.

And, of course, this is the simple-simple-simple-simple-simplified version since each of those steps require a massive number of extremely fine tuned symbiotic interactions: all that just happened and just so happened to have happened the way that they just so happened to have happened.

Furthermore, “neurons reach out and grab other neurons and send signals to them” with, “trillions of motor proteins, and motor proteins are not alive…They march along on these little highways on the brain, carrying things around…the necessary materials to keep the cell going and to repair and to extend its dendrites…Life couldn’t exist without these little molecular machines — by the trillions…Human life and human consciousness are made possible by these incredibly brilliant consortia of little robots.”

Rewrite: accidentally existing neurons somehow know to reach out and grab other accidentally existing neurons and somehow know to send signals to them with trillions of accidentally existing motor proteins, and motor proteins are not alive…They somehow know to march along on these little accidentally existing highways on the accidentally existing brain, somehow knowing to carrying things around the accidentally existing necessary materials to accidentally keep the cell going and to somehow know to repair and to extend its dendrites accidentally existing life couldn’t accidentally exist without these little accidentally existing molecular machines — by the trillions, accidentally existing human life and accidental human consciousness are made accidentally possible by these incredibly accidentally brilliant consortia of little accidentally existing robots.

And that’s about all of the relevant portions about which I wanted to comment.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

From the, “Knowledge Base” section of the, Why the Book Wins site comes the article, How Big Were the Giants in the Bible?

Due to the article’s title referencing “Giants,” the key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s the article’s author’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

Well, we get an idea of the author’s usage within the very first paragraph, “giants in the Bible…portrayed as towering figures…physical attributes…their size” thus, since the usage is about subjectively unusual height it has utterly nothing to do with the English Bible’s usage which is that it’s merely rendering, not even translating, Nephilim, in two verses, or Rephaim, in 98% of all others.

Another question is to what sorts of height we’re considering since subjectively unusual height is just that: subjective—subjective to what and how far above the subjective average are key questions.

We’re told of, “Goliath or the account of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4. These references suggest that giants were present in ancient times, but the specifics of their size are not explicitly stated.”

Actually, to quote pop-Nephilologist Gary Wayne, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were.”

Of course, he still goes on and on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about how Nephilim were “giants,” by which he’s referring to subjectively unusual height, since he sells tall-tales for a living.

The preponderance of the earliest data, the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Flavius Josephus, have Goliath 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.

We’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim.

Thus, we get an idea of the author’s usage of “Giants” again: just over one foot taller than the upper subjectively average height and the unknown—and noted that neither Goliath’s or the Nephilim’s heights were even noted, it was merely asserted that they were “Giants.”

“Goliath’s Height” is referenced and we’re told, “the exact height of Goliath is not mentioned, the Bible describes his armor as weighing around 125 pounds (56 kilograms). This suggests that Goliath was an imposing figure, possibly exceeding 6 feet 6 inches (198 centimeters) in height.”

This is tragically misinformed as Goliath’s is one of the only two specific heights we’re told in the Bible and we know about the discrepancy on that issue.

We’re also told of, “Og, King of Bashan” and how the Bible, “portrays Og as having a bed made of iron that measured approximately 13.5 feet (4.1 meters) long and 6 feet (1.8 meters) wide. While the length of his bed does not directly correlate to his height, it does indicate that Og was significantly larger than an average person.”

Indeed, we’re not told his height. Yet, that’s a conclusion based on various assumptions: I direct the interested reader to my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

When it comes to Nephilim, which Goliath and Og weren’t (they were both of the Rephaim) we’re told, “These Nephilim are often associated with giants” which biblically contextually reads as, “These Nephilim are often associated with Nephilim” and that “the exact size of the Nephilim is not stated, their presence suggests that they were extraordinary beings, surpassing the average human stature” which is an unfounded assertion.

We’re told about, “the context and perspective of ancient writers when interpreting the size of giants in the Bible. Ancient civilizations often employed hyperbolic language to emphasize a person’s strength or stature. Thus, the descriptions of giants may have been slightly exaggerated to convey their dominance and power” and yet, we were told of Nephilim, Og, and Goliath only the latter of which we have any reference to height at all—besides, of course, the “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked who just made up a tall-tale about Nephilim.

The article asks and answers, “How did giants come into existence?” and replies, “According to the Bible, giants were the offspring of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.” This is why the key questions are key since what the author did is to chase the English word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible and now ends up merely asserting that Rephaim, for example, resulted from, “the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men” for which there’s zero indication.

Likewise, the question, “Were there any giants after the flood?” is answered thusly, “The Bible does not mention the presence of giants after the Great Flood. It is commonly believed that the flood wiped out these extraordinary beings.” The author doesn’t seem to realize that Goliath and Og lived post-flood and were appealed to as “giants.” Yet, that merely makes for even more confused assertions in the article.

In short, the article note, “the Bible provides limited details about the size of giants” which, I suppose, means only two specific heights—but granting that the key questions must first be answered.

Now, the same site posted an article titled Where Did Giants in the Bible Come From? Which notes, “The term ‘giants’ mentioned in the Bible often refers to the Nephilim” which is quite accurate if by “often” what is meant is in only two verse—98% of the time it’s rendering “Rephaim.”

Moreover, “The Sons of Anak: Another group of giants…They are described as a race of giants” they are only “described as a race of giants” in that they were a clan of the Rephaim tribe but as for their size, all we’re told is that they were subjectively “tall” (Deut 2).

Yet, additionally, “In Numbers 13:33, the Israelite spies describe the Anakim as formidable and great in stature, causing fear among the Israelites.” This is too generic to be accurate since it wasn’t, “the Israelite,” twelves, “spies” but only the unreliable ones who were said to present an “evil report” and were rebuked by God—of yeah, and you don’t get them referring to Anakim at all in the LXX version of that verse. You also don’t get them described, “as formidable” in any version of that verse. As for, “great in stature” that was actually tall-taled about Nephilim.

Next up are the, “The Rephaim…a race of giants” yet, again, that either reads as, “The Rephaim…a race of Rephaim” or “The Rephaim…a race of” subjectively tall personages (Deut 2).

Furthermore, “The Amorites…In Amos 2:9-10, they are described as tall as cedar trees and strong as oaks, implying their giant-like stature.” Note the qualifying term “implying” when that was really an inference. Sure, Amos tells us that they were big and strong: what of it? Well, people who suffer from Gigorexia Nervosa (my term for people who are obsessed with seeing giants and just make them up where they’re nowhere to be seen) literally research the parochial size of cedars and demand that Amos was implying the conducting of a ration based mathematical correspondence—but no, they don’t do likewise with the strength of oaks since they’re not really interested in the text, they just want to hype the tall-tales.

Now, due to not dealing with the key issues up-front (or ever) when the article asks, “Did all giants perish in biblical times?” it could refer to Nephilim or to Rephaim or specifically to Anakim or to anyone who is subjectively unusually tall, etc.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Prepper Dave’s article, “Unravelling The Mystery Of The Nephilim: From Biblical Lore To Eternal Fascination,” April 2, 2023.
Enigmatically, Prepper Dave begins with, “The enigmatic Nephilim have captivated our imaginations with their alleged connection to the spirits of giants” but since he jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word giants: it’s tricky to know to whom he’s referring—much less what spirits have to do with it.

Clearly appealing to folklore from millennia after the Torah, he notes, “the Watchers – divine beings who sired gigantic offspring with mortal women, only to be imprisoned beneath rocks until their day of reckoning arrives.”

I could tell that he was referring to such folklore due to the employment of the term Watchers and he did go on to reference, “Jews of the Second Temple era.”

Now, due to the folklore, he refers to Nephilim as, “gigantic” and, “larger-than-life creatures.”
Now, he had referred to Nephilim’s, “connection to the spirits of giants” and goes on to write in terms of, “the Nephilim, some people believe these giants…” so that by giants he is referring to Nephilim.

Thus, his usage of giants is gigantic-larger-than-life creatures but that is not the usage of that word in modern English Bibles: it implies nothing about height whatsoever.

Prepper Dave notes, “some people believe these giants may have survived the Great Flood despite scripture suggesting otherwise. Some even speculate that their bloodline may have continued through trans-humanization or demonic interference in AI.”

The most well-known pop-researchers (and many scholarly ones) believe in post-flood Nephilim, despite scripture not suggesting but being crystal clear otherwise: see Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

Claiming post-flood Nephilim implies God failed: He meant to be rid of them but couldn’t get the job done, the flood was much of a waste, He missed a loophole whereby they survived or just came right back.

And then, one has to literally invent a story about how they returned such as the neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tale about, “trans-humanization or demonic interference in AI.”

Prepper Dave notes, “The search for evidence of their existence continues, but so far, most remains found have belonged to mammoths due to their sheer size.” Yet, that is misguided since we don’t have a reliable physical description of Nephilim, for what are we searching? And, “sheer size” has nothing to do with it.

He asserts, “These powerful beings, also known as Anakim, Rephaim, and Nephilim, were described as giants or warlords in various sources.”

Well, if we’re appealing to generic various sources then anything goes. Yet, biblically, that is an inaccurate statement since Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood 100% humans, and Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

There is a biblical correlation between Nephilim and Anakim but a biblical connection is a generic manner whereby to state it (which I used due to it being common parlance).

Such a correlation is recorded in the Bible after we are told that it was an assertion within an, “evil report” (Num 13:31-33) spoken by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked—and, by the way, there’s no such correlation in the LXX version of that text.

Again, Prepper Dave had written of Nephilim’s, “connection to the spirits of giants,” which bifurcated the two but then went on to write, “Nephilim…these giants…” and now went back to bifurcating them again by referring to Nephilim’s, “connection to angels, giants, and human-divine hybrids.”

He notes, “there’s no verse in the Bible that explains where demons came from” which is accurate. He is also quite correct that, “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.”

As for, “no verse in the Bible that explains where demons came from”: such is why most pop-researchers (and many scholarly ones) appeal to folklore from millennia after the Torah, such as the Bible contradicting 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch (see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) which have demons/unclean spirits being the spirits of dead Nephilim.

For a Bible-based elucidation, see the article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

What Rev 12 notes is that the war in heaven between loyal and fallen Angles is a post-Jesus’ ascension event—not a primordial one.

Yet, the fall of Angels is the Gen 6 affair and the fall of Satan (the Cherub, not Angel) is the Gen 3 affair.

Prepper Dave ends up commenting on Num 13:33, “the Nephilim appear again during Israel’s travels in the wilderness, which is supposed to be centuries after the Flood. If the Israelites saw the Nephilim in the land of Canaan, are we to assume that these are the offspring of the Nephilim from Genesis 6? Put differently, did the Nephilim survive the great Flood of Genesis 6–9?”

He is speaking too generically since even in that verse, that chapter, that text, there is no indication that, “the Israelites saw the Nephilim” but only that ten of them merely asserted that they saw them.

Thus, the, “are we to assume” questions are non-issues: Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—period, full stop.

He quotes 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch to the effect that Nephilim were, “three thousand ells” which is MILES tall: great folklore, poor reality.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Please see my guest article post at the Chasing The Giants website.

That which follows is Miryam Brand’s contribution to Nephilim published by De Gruyter, 2023.

Brand is the Visiting Assistant Professor of Judaic Studies and Religious Studies at Brown University, and holds a Ph.D. in Bible and Late Antiquity from New York University

Brand notes, “Nephilim play a central role in a popular Second Temple era story regarding the origin of evil: the myth of the Watchers (ʿīrîm). The depiction of the benê hāʾelōhîm who mate with human women in Gen 6:1–4 became the basis of an explanation of the origin of both the flood and of evil. In the fullest form of this story, angels mated with human women and produced giant children who caused destruction, while the angels themselves caused sin by teaching humans illicit knowledge. When the physical bodies of these giants were destroyed, they became evil spirits that plagued the earth.”

The Second Temple era was from 516 BC–70 AD which is millennia after the Torah and infamous for being a period of historical fiction, wild speculation, forgeries, or whatever that period’s folkloric tall-tales might be—such as folkloric tall-tales.

Watchers is a Second Temple era a.k.a. for Malakim/Angels/benê hāʾelōhîm/sons of God.

As for that they, “produced giant children” it must be asked:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s the Second Temple era’s general usage of whatever vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and term we have as the modern English word “giants”?

What’s Miryam Brand’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

Indeed, that dead Nephilim, “became evil spirits” a.k.a. demons, is folklore from millennia after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see the article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

They above questions are key since, for example, Brand wrote, “The identification of the angels’ offspring as giants relies on the reference to Nephilim in Gen 6:4, as the Nephilim are called giants in Num 13:33.”

In the English Bibles which employ it, “giants” is merely rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” in two verses and, “Repha/im” in 98% of all others. Thus, that, “the Nephilim are called giants in Num 13:33” means, “the Nephilim are called Nephilim in Num 13:33.”

Not that it matters since that verse is part of an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

Miryam Brand went on to write, “It also reflects the consistent Septuagint translation of all references to gībbōrîm, něfīlîm, benê ʿanāq, and rêfāʾîm as γίγας, giants. This translation itself is the result of a synthetic reading of Gen 6, Num 13:22, Num 13:28, Num 13:33, and Deut 2:10–11.”

But how it is consistent to render very different words with different morphologies and different meanings all by one single word: doing so was a terrible idea. In part, it leads undiscerning English readers to chase an English word around a Hebrew Bible.

Also, if the, “translation,” again, it is actually just a rendering, “of all references to…γίγας, giants” that begs the key questions of what, “γίγας, giants” means. That word, gigas related to gigantes and gigantos which are all references to Greek mythology’s false Earth goddess Gaia: with gigantes and gigantos referring to being earth-born as in born of Gaia.

She appears to be implying that gigas/gigantes/gigantos/giants has something to do with subjectively unusual height, which they do not:

Gen 6 refers to Nephilim but not to any height.

Num 13:22 merely notes where Anakim were living.

Num 13:28 refers to various “strong” people groups which included the Anakim.

Num 13:33 is a tall-tale about very, very tall Nephilim who, in non-LXX versions, are correlated to Anakim—which is impossible.

Deut 2:10–11 notes that the Rephaim tribe, including its Anakim clan, et al., were subjectively, “tall” compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Miryam Brand further wrote, “At the same time, while the books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees identify the Nephilim of Gen 6:4 with the giants, the Damascus Document may imply that the term Nephilim indicates the angels themselves…This identification is based on the root n–f–l, ‘to fall,’ as a reference to the fallen angels. The vagueness of the verse at Gen 6:4 itself, which simply states that ‘the Nephilim were in the land during that time,’ can also support this secondary interpretation.”

This is all in the for what it’s worth category—which is not very much if anything at all.

1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Document are all from millennia after the Torah.

Again, “identify the Nephilim of Gen 6:4 with the” means, “identify the Nephilim of Gen 6:4 with the Nephilim.”

Moreover, “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” thus, it is simply not the case that, “the term Nephilim indicates the angels themselves” and that, “This identification is based on the root n–f–l” is just a word-concept fallacy or sorts.

As for, “that ‘the Nephilim were in the land during that time,’ can also support this secondary interpretation” well, that would make for an odd narrative indeed. The contextual focus of the Gen 6:1-4 narrative is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriages, their mating, and their offspring. But this view would have the author artificially interrupting the contextual focus on the narrative to throw in a passing reference to Nephilm who have nothing to do with it.

Or, rather, perhaps, it has it that, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the Nephilim came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them” who are unnamed.

Or, “Sons of God 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” or, something.

Miryam Brand circuitously argues, “In the Greek of 1 En. 7:2, human women who have mated with the rebellious angels produce three kinds of creatures: ‘first large giants, and the giants begot Nephilim, and to the Nephilim were born Elioud’…The identification of the Nephilim in 1 En. 7:2 as the sons of giants reflects an unusual interpretation of Num 13:33a: ‘And there we saw the nephilim sons of giant(s) (haněfîlîm benê ʿanāq)’; this phrase was more commonly (and correctly) understood as referring to giant-like beings rather than the literal sons of giants.”

But this denotes the continued problem with employing the term giants since now, non-LXX versions are not referring to the Anakim, the sons of Anak (Arba’s son) clan but to Nephilim as sons of giants—just how may different words all mean giants?

For example, she refers to, “Nimrod the ‘giant’ (relying again on the Septuagint rendition in LXX Gen 10:8–9)” the Hebrew for which is gibbor.

She notes, “In 1 En. 15:8–11…while the physical bodies of the giants were killed, their spirits were tied to earth, and subsequently turned into evil spirits” a.k.a. demons. For a biblical view, please see the article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The full question posted to the Quora site is: Why do Nephilims have 6 fingers? “If” they exists, what would such a creature have a purpose for these appendages?

Edward Smith commented

A. They didn’t have six fingers.

B. They were the hybrid offspring of angels and human women.

C. They all died in the Flood and never existed again.

D. Goliath was a freak, a mutant, if you like. A genetic aberration. Even today, people are born with six fingers, six toes or other mutations.

E. There have always been races of extra tall and extra short people.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

A. Agreed: that is stated about one single person and he was a Repha, not a Nephil.

B. Agreed.

C. Agreed.

D. I would not go that far. The Masoretic Text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. but the earlier LXX, and DDS, and Josephs have him at just shy of 7 ft. (and we’re not told he had extra digits). But yes, extra digits is just a simple mutation.

E. Indeed.

Edward Smith

1 Sam. 17:4 “Then a champion came out from the camps of the Phi·lisʹtines; his name was Go·liʹath, from Gath,+ and his height was six cubits and a span.”

“Goliath towered to the extraordinary height of six cubits and a span (9 feet 5.75 inches [c. 2.9 meters]). His copper coat of mail weighed 5,000 shekels (c. 126 pounds [c. 57 kilograms]) and the copper blade of his spear weighed 600 shekels (c. 15 pounds [c. 6.8 kilograms]). (1 Sam. 17:4, 5, 7) Goliath was one of the Rephaim; he may have been a mercenary soldier with the Philistine army.—” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011694?q=goliath&p=par

Long cubit (7 handbreadths)51.8 cm / 20.4 in.

Cubit (2 spans / 6 handbreadths)44.5 cm / 17.5 in.

Short cubit38 cm / 15 in.

1 Roman stadium1 ⁄ 8 Roman mile=185 m / 606.95 ft

1Fingerbreadth (1 ⁄ 4 handbreadth)1.85 cm / 0.73 in.

2Handbreadth (4 fingerbreadths)7.4 cm / 2.9 in.

3Span (3 handbreadths)22.2 cm / 8.75 in.

Most scholars agree on roughly 9,1/2ft. based on the cubit measure used by the Philistines.

There were four more wars with the Philistines, and giants and it was the fourth and final one with the extra digits, so you are quite correct there.

“War broke out yet again at Gath, where there was a man of extraordinary size, with 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot, 24 in all; and he too was a descendant of the Rephʹa·im.+ 21 He kept taunting Israel.+ So Jonʹa·than the son of Shimʹe·i,+ David’s brother, struck him down.

22 These four were descendants of the Rephʹa·im in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.” 2 Sam. 21:20–22. NWTST

Ken Ammi

I was just pointing out that some earlier sources have him as being shorter than a latter one.

But even if he was at the taller range, that has nothing to do with Nephilim and, again, he was a Repha.

His equipment doesn’t lend weight, pun intended, to option for the taller range however since you can watch strong-man or weightlifting competitions and see guys who are right around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs. Also, Goliath had someone helping him with his equipment.

I would drop employing the English term “giants” since its modern usage is not the ancient meaning and since some English versions (following the LXX) render (not even translate) both “Nephilim” and “Rephaim” as such, it can cause confusion.

Indeed, one of Goliath’s sons had extra digits.

In any case, your “C.” point goes a long way of accrediting you since you may or may not be aware that 100% of the top-pop-researchers claim post-flood Nephilim. They do so after claiming that the flood God getting rid of them. Thus, they (consciously or not) imply that God failed.

Edward Smith

I think we agree Ken. I appreciate your research and we may meet again on other threads.

Ken Ammi

Shalom! BTW: I’ve written various books on these issues so if you want to stop by, I’ll cut you a deal: truefreethinker.com

Howard Aitchison chimed in with

A. How do you know?

B. It doesn’t say that.

C. Nope. Numbers 13:32–33, “And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

D. Supposition.

E. Finally we agree on something.

Ken Ammi

Most interesting.

A. “Agreed: that is stated about one single person and he was a Repha, not a Nephil”: which I know since that is stated about one single person and he was a Repha, not a Nephil, see 2 Samuel 21:20 wherein your English Bible might have “born to the giant” wherein “giant” is rendering “Repha” and someone born to a Reha is a Repha by definition.

B. “They were the hybrid offspring of angels and human women”: there are a lot of things not said that are still the case—anywhere, about anything—so perhaps we can begin with who the “sons of God” are in Job 38:7.

C. “They all died in the Flood”: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

“and never existed again”: based on no reliable post-flood reference to them.

You’re basing your view on two un-contextual verses, the only ones to which you can appeal, from an “evil report” stated by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked. Such is why I qualified my statement by noting, “NO RELIABLE post-flood reference to them.”

D. That’s the opposite of a supposition, it’s demonstrable: just check those sources wherein they refer to his height.

Well, that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

We will herein review Prof. B. J. Oropeza’s article, “Who Are, “Giants” in the Bible? Understanding the Nephilim of Genesis 6 and Numbers 13,” Patheos, March 26, 2023: Oropeza is a Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Azusa Pacific University.

Oropeza begins by noting, “In the Old Testament of the Bible we read about giants who lived on the earth (Genesis 6; Numbers 13). These extra-large humans are called in Hebrew the Nephilim, though other names for giants include the Rephaim and the Anakim.”

Thus, by the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word, “giants,” Oropeza is referring to personages mentioned in Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 who are Nephilim in the former and Nephilim and/or Anakim in the latter (depending on the rendering and well, Anakim in the latter as per non-LXX versions).

Yet, Oropeza also means, “extra-large humans” ranging from, “Nephilim” to, “Rephaim and the Anakim.”

Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids. The Num 13 verse about them (v. 33) is from an, “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked so we shouldn’t believe them and that is the only place wherefrom we get that Nephilim were, “extra-large” so we must reject that as well.

In short (pun intended), we’ve no reliable physical description of them.

From non-LXX versions of that, “evil report,” we also get a correlation between Nephilim and Anakim so, we must reject that as well.

Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, the tribe of which Anakim were a clan, who were taller, on average, than 5.0-5.3 ft.

Thus, there is no reliable correlation between Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim and no reliable indication that any of them were, “extra-large”—yet, I grant that, “extra-large” is a subjective term.

B. J. Oropeza wrote, “The Hebrew word נְפִלִים [Nephilim] is left untranslated as Nephilim in most English Versions…However, the King James Version, New King James Version, the Septuagint (LXX), as well as the Latin Vulgate, translate this word as ‘giants’ after the Greek word, γίγαντες (gigantes).”

That is a bit problematic since the LXX and Vulgate do not translate as, “giants” since that’s an English word but the LXX is Greek and the Vulgate is Latin.

Rather, both of those render (don’t even translate) as, “gigantes” which, Oropeza does not tell us means, “earth-born.”

Neither the Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin, nor English are telling us anything about height whatsoever: such is not the case with the usage of, “gigantes” nor, “giants.” B. J. Oropeza ends up noting, “the meaning of the word Nephilim gives us little to go on regarding their stature.”

Oropeza states that one, “speculation about the origin of the term Nephilim…is that these beings were the offspring of the sons of God, who were fallen angels” and that, “It is then inferred from this that these offspring grew exceptionally large” but we have not been given any reliable reason to think that they were subjectively unusually tall.

From that, we are quickly told, “ancient Jewish and Christian sources…mention the giants (compare 1 Enoch 6–11; 15–16; Jubilees 5:1–10; 7:21–22; Testament of Reuben 5.5–6; Philo, Questions on Genesis I.92; Justin Martyr, Second Apology 5).”

That is a bit misleading since what is ancient to us is still from millennia after the Torah. Thus, they are all very much latter-day tall-tales.
B. J. Oropeza wrote, “either God completely wiped them out in the Flood” or, “they may have been in some sense predecessors of the giants who were later destroyed by the Israelites” but there is zero reliable indication of any such a thing: and it implies that God failed—He meant to be rid of them but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc.

On this point, B. J. Oropeza tells us, “When Moses sent the twelve tribal leaders to spy out the land of Canaan, they brought back a discouraging report in Numbers 13:32–33: ‘The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)…’”

But that is misleading since it was not, “the twelve” who said that but ten of them: the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuked by God: they just made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale.

But Oropeza does go on to write of, “the spies who were lying or at best exaggerating.”

Yet, we are told, “This passage connects the Nephilim with the Anakim” which is not the case in the LXX, by the way. Also, it matters not since it was just a tall-tale which contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible.

We are told Anakim, “latter are comparable in size with the Rephaim” but biblically, we are told that Rephaim, in general (to include Anakim) were, “tall” but that’s subjective to being taller than the average Israelite male who, in those days, were 5.0-5.3 ft.

B. J. Oropeza notes, “Og, king of Bashan, was a Rephaite whose bed or sarcophagus measured 9 by 4 cubits (perhaps thirteen feet long and six feet wide: Deut 3:11).” Indeed, we don’t have a reliable physical description of him: see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Moreover, we are told, “The gigantic Philistine warrior, Goliath, was said to be…4.5 cubits is not too impressive (a little over 6 1/2 feet tall based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls : 4Q Sam [1 Sam 17:4]). The Hebrew and Vulgate texts have him at 6.5 cubits (over 9 1/2 feet tall).”

Indeed, the LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls and Flavius Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft. (again, compared to 5.0-5.3 ft.) but the latter Vulgate and Masoretic have him taller.
B. J. Oropeza notes, “the size of these giants in no way compares with the Nephilim of Genesis 6 as described in non-canonical books, such as the Damascus Document (Dead Sea Scrolls)—these giants are the height of cedars and their bodies like mountains (CD 2.18–19). Even more impressive (or unbelievable) is 1 Enoch 7 that has them at three hundred cubits high…”

Indeed, in order to get very, very tall Nephilim one has to either believe utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked or appeal to folklore from millennia later.

Incidentally, 1 Enoch does not have them at, “three hundred cubits” but rather, at 3,000 ells which is MILES tall which his great folklore but poor reality—see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

Note carefully how Oropeza answers, “Did Descendants of the Nephilim Exist After the Flood?” which is, “Did the Nephilim survive the great Flood of Genesis 6–9? In Numbers 13:33, however, their name appears again.”

Of course, that the name (a word) appeared has no correlation to whether they were actually alive at the time.

Furthermore, “the event of Israel’s travels in the wilderness, depicted in Numbers, occurs centuries after the Flood. If the Israelites saw the Nephilim in the land of Canaan, are we to assume that the offspring survived the flood of Noah?”

Oddly, Oropeza already identified the ten spies as, “lying or at best exaggerating” and actually read, “Nephilim” as a reference to, “Anakim” yet, now that very same single verse from an, “evil report” serves as the premise for possible post-flood Nephilim.

So, “are we to assume that the offspring survived the flood of Noah?” well, only if we want to contradict the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

As for, “Flood Survivors?” we are told, “If we assume this to be the case (and not an inconsistency), the great Flood may be understood as a local one, affecting the region of Mesopotamia but not other regions.”

Well, the scope of the flood is actually irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t survive it because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

Oropeza notes, “it could be surmised that some of the Nephilim escaped the flood” but that would be, “inconsistency.”

Yet, it is noted, “Some scholars interpret the phrase, ‘and also afterward’ in Genesis 6:4 as referring to a time after the Flood, anticipating mention of the Nephilim in Numbers 13:33.”

Yet, such scholars are mistaken since, again, it contradicts the Bible five times and it also violates the context. The, “afterward” statement has nothing to do with the flood—in fact, the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later, v. 17.

The, “afterward” is, “afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them” which was, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” as per v. 1.

Thus, it simply informs us that such mating took place initially, at the v. 1 timestamp, and thereafter, such that they kept taking place: but that is all pre-flood.
At least B. J. Oropeza tells us, “this interpretation is hard to reconcile with the context of Genesis 6—9, which depicts the flood as wiping out all human life except Noah’s family (Gen 6:5—7:23; esp. 7:19).”

Oropeza thinks that, “Consistent with this view, the phrase ‘and also afterward’ could mean that the Nephilim were living at the time before the Flood and also ‘after’ the advent of the sons of God.”

Yet, that is too much of a stretch: especially since the contextual focus of the narrative are the son of God and daughters of men—their attraction, marriages, and offspring. Thus, it would make for an odd narrative if Nephilim were artificially inserted into it as if merely happenstantially and with nothing more being said about them that they just so happened to be around at the time.

B. J. Oropeza does note, “this alternative explanation does not explain how the Nephilim reappear in Numbers 13” but we already have an answer to that: one that is given to us by the narrative of Num chaps 13 and 14.

We are told that an option is that, “the Nephilim in Genesis 6 and Numbers 13 are two unrelated peoples who happen to have the same name. But this seems unlikely, given the great stature of both peoples…Nephilim are only named as such because they share characteristics in common with the older Nephilim: great size.”

But, again, we have no reliable indication that Nephilim were of subjectively, “great stature…great size” and we also know that, “great stature…great size” can refer to merely being taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.

B. J. Oropeza circles back to the, “evil report” again and emphasizes, “Perhaps a better explanation of this sort is that the spies reported false information in Numbers 13” and only then specifies that it was, “The ten spies” and refers to their assertions as, “a negative report” which was, “clearly exaggerated” (to say the least).

Thus, “If their report implies false information, they may have lied when they claimed that the Anakim were descendants of the Nephilim.”

Yet, B. J. Oropeza still relies on that report, in a way, since the sentence I just quoted is followed directly with, “Granted, they may have appeared to be similar to the Nephilim of old because of their great size” but, again, they only ways to get, “great size” (whatever that means) for Nephilim are:

1) Commit a word-concept fallacy by assuming that the words gigantes or giants are informing us about some unknown level of subjectively unusual height.

2) Actually believing the evil report.

3) Relying on folklore from millennia after the Torah.

Oropeza notes, “Ashley writes, ‘As the text stands [Num 13:31–33] it is clear that the majority report [of the spies] is condemned as false and faithless.’ (Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT; 1993:243).”

Amen! And I collected various such statements by scholars in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

Oropeza ends by assuring us, “Frankly, if you are a believer in Christ, I really don’t think it matters much which position you prefer, since none of these should really have a bearing on your faith.”

Yet, fallacious Nephilology actually leads to fallacious bibliology and fallacious theology proper. That is because in order to get post-flood Nephilim, one has to imply that God failed and has to mishandle and manipulate texts toward a grand-narrative tall-tale.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Undergoing review is Joe Edge’s column for the Augusta Press which is tiled The Nephilim Were Not Mythical Angelic Offspring, June 26, 2023 AD: Edge, “graduated from Evans high school in 2000 and served four years in the United States Marine Corps right out of High School.”

He references, “many discussions about the Nephilim with varying opinions that were not based in fact” due to, “Improper interpretation…or a flawed traditional teaching” and so he sought, “an objective examination.

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants 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.

Joe Edge asserts that the Angel view, “that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels who left their heavenly abode to have sexual relations with women…is based on Jewish tradition rather than the Biblical text itself.”

Such, of course, isn’t the case but we will have to see whether he actually gets into that issue.

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.

Joe Edge appeals to, “two lineages of both Seth and Cain in Gen. 4-5 present a contrast between a lineage that was evil and curses and one that was righteous” and that “It is the backdrop of these two genealogies that the context for chapter 6 is found.”

He clearly takes the Sethite view which, as we just saw, is based on myth since there’s no indication of any such a thing as, “a lineage that was evil and curses and one that was righteous”: and keep in mind that the righteous lineage was so utterly righteous that they sinned so badly that it served as the premise for the flood—go figure.

From that, Edge jumps to, “a list of reasons I believe the ‘sons of God’ does not refer to fallen angels”:

“The fact that the Nephilim were subject to God’s ensuing judgment prove that they were mortal rather than some supernatural half-breed”: this is incoherent since there’s no reason to think that God would not judge half-breeds and Edge didn’t bother elucidating his assertion.

“Gen. 6:1-8 is about humanity and its doomed outcome not angels and their punishment”: indeed, but what of it? The Bible is more of an anthropological anthology than it is a theological anthology: it’s focus always and quickly turns to humanity—our creation, our fall, and our redemption and how things along the way effect us.

“Contextually, there has not been any mention of angelic beings in the Old Testament up to this point. It would not make logical sense for this to be first mention of them”: nothing in the entire Bible is mentioned until it’s mentioned. Again, he merely asserted but didn’t elucidate why his subjective opinion is that, “It would not make logical sense for this to be first mention of them.”

“Nowhere in Scripture is it found that angelic beings have the ability to procreate as mankind can”: he can only state this after rejecting the Scripture that does refer to that. Also, Jude correlates the sin of Angles to sexual sin.

“Angels are spiritual beings not corporeal”: this is a mere assertion. Angels are described as looking just like human beings and performing physical actions without any indication whatsoever that such isn’t their ontology.

“Jesus indicated in Matt. 22:30 that angels do not have sexual relations as humans”: Jesus didn’t indicate any such thing, he specifically specified that, “Angels of God in heaven,” the loyal ones, don’t marry and are not given in marriage. Such is why those who did are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

Thus, his top reasons for rejecting the original, traditional, and majority view consisted of subjective assertions and misunderstandings.

Joe Edge notes, “Augustine and the reformers Luther and Calvin all agreed that the correct interpretation was that the ‘sons of God’ referred to the lineage of Seth while the ‘daughters of man’ referred to the lineage of Cain.”

Augustine actually took quite a nuanced view but the part of his view that appealed to the fundamental myth may be easily, psychologically, explained.

He converted to Christianity from Gnostic Manichaeism and sough to do away with any and all such influence and since Mani taught that Angel view, Augustine would reject it.

Luther and Calvin came along millennia later and I covered all three of these men in my book.

Back to Nephilim, Edge notes that following Gen 6, “The word Nephilim appears a second time in the Old Testament in Number 13:33. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” and asks, “If the Nephilim are decedents of the Anakites then how did they survive the flood?”

His question is backward: the verse noted that Anakites (Anakim) were the decedents of the Nephilim. Yet, the question remains, “then how did they survive the flood?” I can only imagine that Joe Edge didn’t interact with the narrative of Num 13 but merely uncritically picked up one single verse and ran with it.

He notes, “The Anakites were mentioned multiple times” and were, “known for their size” when, that is, we note that what we’re told about their size (Deut 2) is that they were, “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft.

Edge jumps to the conclusion that, “It makes logical sense that the Nephilim were a tall strong people that were part of the Anakites but not half angel abominations” but that’s merely piling up assumed assertions: 1) we don’t have a reliable physical description of Nephilim, 2) there’s no reliable way to correlated them to Anakites (and Anakim are missing from the LXX version of that verse), 3) a survival for Nephilim past the flood contradicts the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

Edge notes, “An alternative meaning to Numbers 13:33 is that the Hebrew spies were exaggerating. They could have used hyperbole” yet, he bypasses that by noting, “Either way there is no textual reason to interpret the Nephilim in Numbers 13 as being anything more than large humans.” Well, stating it was exaggeration and hyperbole is being mild, he’s exclusively appealing to one single (non-LXX) version of an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

He didn’t bother elucidating those facts and those facts make that one sentence a non-issue: they just made up a tall-tale, Nephilim didn’t survive the flood in any way, shape, or form, and Anakites weren’t related to them—Anakite were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

Speaking of exaggeration and hyperbole, as is very common, he asserts that Nephilim were, “a race of people who were violent and immoral. The text never even states that the Nephilim were the direct offspring of those two lineages but just that they were on the earth at the time.”

It’s exaggeration and hyperbole, or at least just arguments from silence, to merely assert they were violent and immoral since all we’re told about then in that sense is that they were mighty and renown (for unknown reasons).

As for the text never even stating that the Nephilim were the direct offspring of those two lineages: it would be an odd and un-contextual narrative if it just states that they were on the earth at the time.

The contextual focus of the narrative is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriages, and their offspring so it would be un-contextual for the narrative to artificially insert some unrelated guys who just happened to be around at the time and about whom nothing more was said.

He also asserts, “There is zero textual evidence to assume Nephilim refers to a race of half angelic half human creatures” and then moves from that it’s, “based on Jewish tradition” to that, “That idea comes strictly from Jewish myth and has no hermeneutical standing in Scripture.”

Yet, he had noted, “Jewish tradition rather than the Biblical text itself” but didn’t get around to reviewing the Angel view’s arguments: he only listed his fallacious objections to it.

Job 38:7 alone is enough to move us into the Angel view direction since it has, “sons of God” being non-human beings (which the LXX has as “angelos”).

Joe Edge concludes that, “Based on this corpus of evidence” which he has 99% ignored, “I believe that the Nephilim were decedents who resulted from inter-marriage between the women in Cain’s lineage and the men in Seth’s” even though he also told us, “The text never even states that the Nephilim were the direct offspring of those two lineages but just that they were on the earth at the time.”

He also concludes, “The corruption of Seth’s line led to God’s decree that he would wipe out mankind” but he didn’t bother telling us why such mixed marriages ever since then have not resulted in such floods.

I thought to review, in part, some of the comments to the article, in closing.

Someone wrote, “…one of your foundational assertions central to your argument is incorrect…the angelic host…have the God given ability to assume the properties of human flesh” but there’s no indication of that whatsoever.

This person quoted, “Heb 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” but what therein did you read about the God given ability to assume the properties of human flesh? Nothing, people who hold to that man-made tradition read such texts and artificially insert a concept they never state nor imply.

Rather than coming to the logical conclusion I noted above about how Angels naturally look, they eisegetically read traditions into text that don’t even hint about them.

You see, this person noted, “So human like in their appearance & actions are they that the scripture even details they are able to sit down for a meal” but then insert that it’s due to assuming the properties of human flesh rather than ontologically having such properties.

This person reiterated, “angels…are being described here as assuming form capable of eating , sleeping, walking, talking, and being sexually attractive to humans” but continues to insist that these were cases of, “assuming human form…assuming human form…assuming human form…assume human form.”

Joe Edge replied by likewise teaching un-biblical Angelology by reiterating, “The fact is that they are ‘spirit’ beings” and doubles his error by stating, “Can they take on the apperance of flesh? Yes. Are they flesh? No.”

He rightly notes, “There is no example of ‘spirits’ being able to procreate or take on flesh in that way” which is accurate but has nothing to do with Angles.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

I engaged in the following discussion based on my video AronRa claims to know that God does not exist.

I, Ken Ammi, noted:

Ironically, in order to positively assert God’s non-existence one would have to possess omniscience and since omniscience is, traditionally, an attribute of God then one must be God in order to positively assert God’s non-existence. This means that, in this case, AronRa has proved the existence of god even if that god is AronRa…may God help us all.

A certain Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy replied

i think his logic (like mine) is that if something has no evidence you should assume it doesnt exist. would you say you lack a belief in santa or you believe he doesnt exist? because i would say he doesnt exist because of no convincing evidence. its the same thing for god

Ken Ammi

Agreed, “if something has no evidence you should assume it doesnt exist” so what does that have to do with God? Also, note your movement from “evidence” to “convincing evidence.” Correlations to Santa are a category error. Yet, the first issue is actually that you began with a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so first back up and tell us how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy

i didnt start with a conclusion, i started neutral. also if using santa doesnt apply then how bout i use zeus? there is no evidence for him (also sorry for saying convincing evidence, mistake on my part) so therefore i should assume he doesnt exist. i am not basing my conclusion of hidden assumptions, there is no evidence for the positive, therefore we can assume the negative. my worldview has nothing to do with the topic of (a)theism, thats a completely different can of worms

Ken Ammi

​Well friend, of course you started with a conclusion since you started with “i think his logic (like mine)” so that you began by merely implying the existence of logic, that adherence to it is an imperative, that you are to adhere to it, that others should as well, that you accurately conform to it, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, the hidden assumptions are those upon which you came to such conclusions, those upon which you implied such things.

In other words, how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?

Without these answers then you can go on about Santa and Zeus and how you actually claim to know “there is no evidence for the positive” and it will merely be you expressing subjective emotions that are impotent. Thus, your worldview has everything to do with any topic.

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy

Ken Ammi “implying the existance of logic” thank you for making it clear we can not have a good faith argument as you have shown yourself to be a backpeddling solipsist

Ken Ammi

Non sequitur. You began with a conclusion such as implying the existence and now seem only interested in avoiding such a fact and calling me names as a distraction tactic.

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy

Ken Ammi “calling me names” youre questioning truth and existance when you start to lose an argument which is just like what a solipsist does. i dont need to explain existance or proof for this because we both agreed on it until you didnt want to answer my point, exactly like a solipsist

Ken Ammi

You may recall that I asked “how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?” which you conveniently side stepped.

That had nothing to do with when I start losing an argument since I elucidated, “Without these answers then you…will merely be you expressing subjective emotions that are impotent” which is what is happening still.

And no, it is not a case of “because we both agreed on it” since to you truth, logic, and ethics are accidents and to you there is no universal imperative to adhere to them. I realize that your ultimate answer to anything and everything will be that it just is, it just happened, it just happens to have happened, etc. but such is the bed you made when you chose your worldview.

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy

1. Truth que truth, which follows there can be no contradictions. 2. Because if you don’t follow truth then that’s a dumb thing to do and its not useful to you 3. why would anyone want to do something wrong?

i would hope we all want to do truthful things and so I wish to help people get to that goal. also dont call my wordview “accidents”, its not accidents, accidents imply one thing was meant to happen and a different thing did. physics works one way, it is never an accident unless human desire is involved. there is no universal imperative to adhere to them because we’re humans, is it a universal imperative as a human that we should adhere to them? yes i would think so, but only because not would not being truthful. when i said “we both agree on it” i just wanted to get on with what we were talking about.

its like if some communists were discussing communist theory and a capitalist asks why they havent justified their view against capitalism (this isnt a full analogy dont get your knickers in a twist). my point was that its a waste of time to talk about our fundamental beliefs because were arguing about something else. heck, we werent even arguing in the first place. i was trying to explain to you what his actual view is: that he doesnt assert gods non existance first, he sees there is no evidence for him and follows that to its logical conclusion that we should assume it doesnt exist.

I thought of a better version of my analogy, its like 2 people arguing over what actions are morally better. the fact theyve agreed to argue about this shows they know that each other already thinks morals exist so both of them going on record to talk about why they believe in morals is a waste of time. or its like in high end physics papers if they wrote what every symbol meant and the laws of physics, they dont need to do that so they dont do it.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you are merely begging questions. “Truth que truth” seems to mean “I dunno, it just is” which is my point.

But why “there can be no contradictions” when there are?

And we see that all your worldview has to offer is subjective emotive assertions “if you don’t follow truth then that’s a dumb thing to do and its not useful to you.” So, why avoid being dumb if we are just accidentally and temporarily existing apes?

“why would anyone want to do something wrong?” for many, many, many reasons: how is that even a question?

You may subjectively “hope we all want to do truthful things” but your hope goes ignored by many people and you are getting ahead of yourself: why, on your worldview, should accidentally and temporarily existing apes do truthful things when truth would be based on a reflection or reality which is accidental and there is no imperative to adhere to it?

And if the universe and everything it contains, including your haphazardly evolved brain, were not meant to happen then all of it is accidental: and yes, you can move the goalpost by picking on semantics that will only expose your desperation to avoid the implications of your worldview.

Moreover, you say “physics works one way” but, again, they work one way by accident.

So, sure, your subjective assertion is that “there is no universal imperative to adhere to” physics but we can subjectively have a personal preference adhere to them (which is incoherent, of course, since you do not chose to allow your neural reactions to occur as they do, they do adhere to physics regardless of your personal preference).

But you are back to the same ol’ problem, you think we should adhere to physics “only because not would not being truthful” but truth is accidental, as is your supposed ability to discern it, and there is no imperative to do so—you are building a bottomless pit of assertions stacked one atop another so that it is assertions all the way down.

Indeed, you think “its a waste of time to talk about our fundamental beliefs because were arguing about something else” but fail to note that the argument about something else is based on, founded upon, premised upon our fundamental beliefs. I realize that Atheists are used to showing up, saying “Jump” and expecting people like me to reply, “How high?” but my reply is “Why?”

So you offered a perfect example, “he sees there is no evidence for him” which is utterly subjective “and follows that to its [il]logical conclusion that we should assume it doesnt exist” so that the conclusion is based on the premise—and the premise is faulty so we need not bother with the conclusion.

Thus, your better analogy runs into the same ol’ problem. Sure, perhaps the 2 people already think morals exist but the one believes they are derived from God’s very ontology and front loaded into us so there is an imperative to adhere to them but the other person thinks we are temporarily and accidentally existing apes so that morality is just a Darwinian survival mechanism and that the desire to survive is accidental, as is life, as is the ape’s ability to come to such conclusions, and there is no imperative to be moral plus, no ultimate accountability if the ape is not.

You analogy to high end physics papers is that they do not write what every symbol means and the laws of physics because such as been established already and yet, the conclusions derived from them are up for challenge.

So, since your worldview is that the entire universe is accidental—or call is by whatever consolingly delusional term you subjectively prefer—is utterly destroys all that which follows.

Well, that ended it since the Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy was not Pedantic enough to continue.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.