Month: October 2024

I thought two note two things about the movie Apartment 7a which is a styled third version of Rosemary’s Baby which is about a women who gets impregnated by Satan so as to the birth the anti-Christ.

It’s oft said to be a prequel but it’s really just a new origins story.

In any case, I noted that when the protagonist opens a Bible but when the camera view pans in on it, I noticed that someone mashed together different portions of the Bible into what’s only supposed to be one text—for whatever unknown reason.

Also, when she ends up splattered on a street, she splatters in a Baphomet pose.

See my various movie review 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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Undergoing consideration is that which TJ Steadman wrote about the flood and Rephaim as Nephilim 2.0.

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

In his book Answers to Giant Questions, he claims “Now, while the Canaanites venerated El as head of the pantheon, we know as Christians that their god is not, in reality, the top dog” indeed, and that “Only Yahweh has the power to animate the spirits of the Rephaim.”

Now, this is because he takes a particular, and peculiar, view of Rephaim as Nephilim 2.0 which Nimrod somehow manufactured via occult means—see my article TJ Steadman on the rise and fall and rise of Nimrod aka Enmerkar, Giant, Nephil, Repha, Assyrian, Rahab, Leviathan.

Biblically, the root word repha is used to reference healing, the dead, a people group (the Rephaim), etc. so that, as always, context is king since context always determines meaning.

TJ Steadman continues thusly, “Only He can command Leviathan to release His ‘treasures of darkness’ upon the earth” whatever that means.

He then refers to “the hidden purpose of the Flood” and asks, “What could God have been doing with a world filled with giants” Nephilim, actually, “knowing that their spirits would not perish in the Flood?” but who said so or, who said not?

He is getting that idea from pseudopigraphical texts from millennia after the Torah was written, two of which claim that demons are Nephilim spirits (Jubilees and Ethiopic Enoch)—for my biblical view of who/what demons are, see the article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?
Now, it is true that spirits would not perish due to the bodies they inhabited being covered by water but that does not mean that they became demons.

TJ Steadman asks, “Could those spirits have escaped judgment for so long, having been reserved for a time such as this?” there is zero biblical indication of any such thing.

He noted, “While the Canaanites falsely attributed this power to their usurping deity who was really a fallen son of God, the truth is that there was nobody in Canaanite religion who had the power to set the demons loose, so people who believe that they might be able to summon the Rephaim on their own are sorely mistaken,” good to know.

He states, “We can become so fixated on the idea of the Flood being a global event that was survived by nobody except Noah’s family” let us pause: Bible believers are “so fixated” because that is what we are so very clearly told.

Setting aside the issue of global vs. local flood for now, note that regarding who survived: it was Noah, his wife, their three sons, the three sons’ wives, and some animals (Gen 6 and 1 Peter 3:20).

He is, in part, stating that because, as he continues directly from where I paused quoting, “that we flatly refuse to think about the fact that the Scripture states that the giants that came after the Flood came from those that existed before it.”

This ranges from misguided to vague to wrong.

It is not enough to make statements such as “the Scripture states” because that is a reification fallacy: the Scriptures is not a person and so states nothing. Rather, God inspired words written in Scripture including many that we should not believe such as those statements made by Satan, the father of lies, that are recorded in Scripture.

Thus, “the Scripture states” or “the Bible says” or “it’s in the Bible” or “God inspired…” or “Moses wrote” or any such things are vague.
More accurately, “the Scripture” record a claim that “states that the giants” Nephilim, “that came after the Flood came from those that existed before it.”

So, the key questions are who said it, in what context was it said, was is accurate, how was it received, what was the reply, etc.?

TJ Steadman claims and also denies post-flood Nephilim and builds his entire case upon one single verse, as all post-flood Nephilim believers are forced to do, which then becomes a worldview hermeneutic via which they then misread and misinterpret other verses.

He is actually telling us that “the Scripture states” that but that was stated by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing, rebuked spies who made four claims about which the whole rest of the Bible knows nothing within an “evil report” and were rebuked for it by God Himself.

For my detailed interaction with the relevant portion of Num 13, which is to what he is referring, see the opening statement I made in my debate with TJ Steadman, here.

Since the one and also post-flood Nephilim text is utterly unreliable—for many reasons—then the logical and theological conclusion is that the last of the Nephilim died in the flood, did not return, and never will in any way, shape or form.

So now, contextual to Nephilim discussion: whether the flood was global or local matters not. If global then the Nephilim died in the flood since only eight people and some animals survived. If local then the Nephilim were living in the locality that was flooded since there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim.

TJ Steadman further writes, “Naturally, this will result in the text being forced to fit concepts that it plainly doesn’t support, to defend certain theological systems. This is the point at which for many, the literalism dissolves, and words like ‘giant’ are explained as being references to power, royalty, influence or pride.”

Ironically, it is he who is expecting us to take his preferred late-comer English word “giant” to mean something unspecific about unusual height literally.

Biblically, the English term “giant” is not a “references to power, royalty, influence or pride” but is used to render (no, not even translate) either “Nephilim” or “Rephaim.”

He offers this:

A common example is the interpretation of the Numbers 13 account which draws particular attention to the phrase “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight,” which is taken to mean that the spies considered themselves diminutive compared to their supposedly normally-proportioned enemies. It might read well as a moral lesson on selfesteem, but the direct mention of giants (” … and there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants”) throws that idea out – unless you transliterate, and then you are left with “Nephilim” left happily unexplained and unquestioned.

Note that it was not “the spies” who said that since there were twelves spies who were all “the spies.” Rather, that was stated by the unfaithful, disloyal, rebuked ones who concocted that tall tale.

Thus, it was not “a moral lesson on selfesteem” nor a “direct mention of giants,” Nephilim actually, and since “Nephilim” does not mean what TJ Steadman sometimes thinks of when he uses the term “giants” then it also has nothing to do with a “happily unexplained and unquestioned.”
I have dealt with this issue in every book I have written about Nephilim related issues.

He notes:

However, avoidance of these questions and their associated issues will lead to other problems. We have already seen that the avoidance of giants in the pre-Flood world raises the question of how God might justify the destruction of that world and its inhabitants.
Similarly, writing off the post-Flood accounts of giants causes further problems, notably the issue of the apparent genocides committed by the Israelites at the command of God in the conquest of Canaan.

Indeed, avoidance leads to other problems as much as does turning them into theo-sci-fi.

The “giants in the pre-Flood world” were Nephilim and the “post-Flood accounts of giants” are accounts of Rephaim.

We should not chase the English word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, the Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans and there is no relation between them.

But what of “the apparent genocides”? Well, I have a whole chapter, titled “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?,” just on that issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?: the bottom line is that God tells us many times why He is commanding such things and never states one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them—never, ever.

TJ Steadman seeks the escape-clause-loophole of asserting that Rephaim are Nephilim 2.0 who were all but manufactured by Nimrod but such is the stuff of which theo-sci-fi is made.

The deeper problem is what will happen when TJ Steadman—and essentially all pop-researchers (see my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers) tell people that it is okay, since they were just wiping out post-flood Nephilim (because, apparently, the flood did not do that) but anyone can see that such is not the case. Thus, this is a case of creating problems under the semblance of solving them.

He goes on to note:

If we take the responsible approach, we are forced to take the Biblical account in its entirety quite seriously. That implies thinking about by what possible means these difficult passages might be reconciled after we have done the Word of God the simple dignity of seeking the best translation.
Then we must consider any possible explanation of the existence of giants after the Flood, and the relationship they might have to those mentioned prior to the Flood. As ignorance tends to create more problems than it solves, the hope is that by carefully expounding the Scriptures we may arrive at a solution.
The idea of the floodwaters coming from the “fountains of the great deep” is meant to indicate that the Flood was of supernatural origin, and that the power responsible for releasing such destructive force may have been a malevolent entity compelled by God to carry out His will. It does not mean that we should expect to find vast reserves of water deep in the core of a supposedly hollow earth.

Indeed, the responsible approach is that which he noted. I am not aiming this, as it were, at him specifically but be careful since sometimes, “seeking the best translation” is used to mean seeking the ones that already state what one wants to hear—such as one that peppers the word “giant” through the Bible and leaves one to pour preconceived, fairytale spiked, meaning(s) into it.

As for “the existence of giants after the Flood”: the first question is “What do you mean by ‘giants’?”

Nephilim did not exist post-flood and Rephaim did because of well, the birds and the bees.

Again, he thinks that Rephaim are a post-flood name for Nephilim but he actually argues that the one and only verse that refers to Nephilim post-flood—the rebuked evil report—was actually edited by a redactor during the Babylonian captivity (even though there is no manuscript evidence of such a claim)—centuries after the Torah was written—so, apparently, we do not and cannot actually know what the rebuked spies stated.

As for “the relationship they might have to those mentioned prior to the Flood”:

1) there is no relationship between Rephaim and Nephilim (and no, you cannot even get that if you actually believe the rebuked evil report).
2) the relationship is one of reference, the rebuked spies referred to Nephilim and claimed to have seen them (the Israelites did not) so the relation is one in name only like conjuring up a boogey man in order to concoct a “Don’t go in the woods” style fear mongering scare tactic tall tale.

As for “may have been a malevolent entity compelled by God,” what we are told is, “I will destroy…I will destroy…I Myself am bringing floodwaters…I will cause it to rain…He destroyed” (Gen 6:7, 13, 17, 7:4, 23).

Ironic that he refers to creating more problems than one is solving.
The issue of floodwaters is fascinating as it serves as a very telling example of how TJ Steadman appears to cross the line into actually accepting Pagan mythology as is and then using it to interpret or re-interpret or mis-interpret the Bible—I know that he is cautious about not doing any such thing and I am just offering word of caution to a brother.
You see, in the ANE the abyss/absu was the watery chaos. Thus, he is reading the biblical reference to water coming from the fountains of the great deep as maybe coming from a malevolent entity who would dwell in that chaos and brought chaos to Earth.

Now, note the well, what I will call manipulation whereby he refers to “a supposedly hollow earth” which I also noticed when he refers to that “The Greeks described Tartarus as being under the earth, but that is not meant to be understood in terms of literal ‘flat earth’ geography” and “The Abyss is no more a physical place than the earth is flat” so that the trigger is to get us to think that since we do not want to be associated with a hollow or flat Earth then we must reject water coming from the fountains of the great deep and Tartarus being under the Earth (in the Earth, actually)— I would pay cash money to hear a debate between an hollow-Earther and a flat-Earther!!!

So, we should not expect to find vast reserves of water deep in the core of a supposedly hollow earth but why qualify that statement with “core” and “hollow”? Why not tells us to not expect to find vast reserves of water deep beneath the Earth’s surface?

The simple fact, that we now know more that it ever was in the past, is that there are, in very point of fact, many reserves of water deep beneath the Earth’s surface.

Thus, perhaps at sometime in the past someone, maybe even a Bible believers, thought that water coming from the fountains of the great deep must have been symbolic but we know that it is as literal as it gets: the floodwaters were a combination of rain and water coming from the fountains of the great deep.

Under the heading “Judgment on Evil Powers, Not Sin,” TJ Steadman wrote:

The Flood was not a judgment on sinful humans, or an eradication program directed toward God’s image-bearers, but a means of preserving the remnant of our species so that humanity could start over again.
Had it not been for the Flood, Noah’s family would certainly have been killed by the Nephilim, and the last hope of humanity would have been lost. The Flood was God’s means of saving His people from the trouble that was otherwise going to befall them.
There is an amazing irony in the work of God seen in the Flood though – the God of order bringing non-order upon an already chaotic world to set everything right again.

Part of this is attempting to understand the precious little we are told about Nephilim: which is merely their parentage and that they became mighty and well known—period.

He claims, “The Flood was not a judgment on sinful humans” but Gen 6:5-7 note, “the wickedness of man was great…every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…the LORD was sorry that He had made man…So the LORD said, ‘I will destroy man…’”

And no, I have no problem with “man” referring to humans and to Nephilim and even to Angels since the former is obvious, Nephilim were half “man” so can be referred to as such (like Barak Obama is the “first Black President” even though he is half Black), and Angles look just like human males and thus, are referred to as such.

Now, he claims “The Flood was not a judgment on sinful humans” but during our debate he stated, “we don’t have in scripture any account of the purpose of the flood being for eliminating the Nephilim.” So, if it was not to contra humans nor contra Nephilim then God must have flooded the Earth not for the reasons He stated but to judge Angels.

The issue of ending “an eradication program” so that “humanity could start over again” is made difficult since he denies and also accepts that there were post-flood Nephilim. On the post-flood Nephilim view, the “eradication program” did not end with the flood and “humanity could” not just “start over again” since Nephilim were still running amok doing whatever they were doing.

Now, if “The Flood was God’s means of saving His people” then any concept of post-flood Nephilim means that God flooded the Earth only to, somehow and contradictory to His Word, have Nephilim survive or return and continue going at it.

TJ Steadman then asks, “What do we make of this?” and replies:

During the Flood, God opened the spiritual portals through our material world. In 40 days and nights, He passed judgment on all flesh. He sealed the fate of those wicked giants, detaching them from the powerful bodies they once had. He closed the gateway between the material world and the spiritual so that the spirits became trapped in their disembodied state.
After 150 days of disembodied existence, the Nephilim changed. They became the next iteration – unclean spirits seeking an opportunity for embodiment. We have no evidence to suggest that these spirits were able to achieve embodiment by their own power. Thus, the iniquity of Azazel had resulted in the “offspring of the goat” – the elohim (spirits) later referred to as Rephaim…
There is another way to view the cryptic “150 days” along similar lines. This time instead of goats, we will look at locusts. In an agrarian society, it was common knowledge that the life cycle of a locust averages 150 days. In that time, locusts undergo metamorphosis. Later we will see how important this illustration is, in describing the same thing that we just learned regarding the dead Nephilim and their subsequent form.

If you are thinking that most of that is unbiblical, even if it appears reasonable, then you are correct.

As far as I know, that “God opened the spiritual portals” is made up stuff but he makes if up in order to then claim “He closed the gateway” and so Nephilim spirits, “became trapped in their disembodied state” which he is arguing based not on the Bible but, again, based on folklore from centuries after the Torah was written.

Now, that he assets that precisely “After 150 days…Nephilim changed” into their “next iteration,” hence my term Nephilim 2.0 is part of his post-flood Nephilim view.

Yet, I state Nephilim 2.0 for another reason: because he also claim we can know how tall they were via Num 13:33, the rebuked evil report, and one cannot measure the height of a spirit so he claims they were actually alive and embodied at the time—yet, he also claims a redactor inserted the tern Nephilim into that verse centuries after it was written.

Yet, he also, also thinks that Rephaim are embodies Nephilim 2.0.
If you are having a hard time tracking all of this, welcome to the club.
By appealing to “the iniquity of Azazel” he is denoting that he is creating a problem—that of “unclean spirits seeking an opportunity for embodiment”—and supposing to solving it by, again, quoting pseudepigraphical folklore from centuries after the Torah was written, this time in the form of Ethiopic Enoch/1 Enoch—see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

There is absolute zero biblical indication that Rephaim were “offspring of the goat,” whatever that means (I actually know he is erroneously playing off of the scapegoat issue). So, “Nephilim” were “elohim (spirits)” and “later referred to as Rephaim” and such watering down and playing with words either means that TJ Steadman is the greatest contextually relevant scholars in history—since, as far as I know, no one else in history has ever claimed any such thing—(which may be), or he is mistaken.

Yes, there are texts wherein locusts are symbolic of, say, a destructive army but to study the life cycle of insects to correlate them to a tale about “dead Nephilim and their subsequent form” does not end up working out.

Under the title, “There is a Hidden Purpose of God at Work,” TJ Steadman wrote:

As we are going to find out, there was another purpose of God at work in the Flood.
This one is not referred to explicitly, but in the light of what we have just seen, and as we continue, it will become apparent that the death of the Nephilim was not the end of them, and it was never supposed to be.
Our omniscient God always has a plan, and the disembodied giants would soon be part of it, whether they liked it or not.

So, the flood was our omniscient God’s “means of saving His people” so that “humanity could start over again” but “another purpose” that “is not referred to explicitly” results in that “the death of the Nephilim was not the end of them” which is rather odd.

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

The Standing For Truth channel posted moderated the debate DEBATE | Does The OT Teach That God Is Only One Person? Sam Shamoun VS. Otis Lewis.

Since I’ve written quite a bit regarding 1 Enoch, which leads to issues of canon, I thought to focus on some (very repetitive) arguments made by Otis Lewis as to why he continuously appealed to apocryphal texts such as Jubilees and 1 Enoch (which is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch).

His modus operandi is quite simple to discern (especially since he so oft repeated it) so as to why appeal to the Book of Jubilee, he noted:

The nation of Ethiopia has been with children of Israel since the days of Moses so they would have the correct canon of the Bible, inside that canon is something extraordinary…

If you go and search the Ethiopian Bible you’ll get a better shot at this…

Ethiopia has been with Israel, they hung around Israel since the days of Moses, okay, not anybody outside of the African continent, or Europe, anybody in Europe, was dealing with Israelites…

Ethiopia has had this canon since the days of Moses…

The reason why you reject the Book of Jubilees is because it’s from Ethiopia, the land of Africa, that’s why not you, but that’s why the people are rejecting it…

Ethiopia has been dealing with Israel since the days of Moses…

Look in the Book of Jubilees and you will see and I appealed to history, because of this Ethiopia has had the law and the prophets well before and longer than any nation on this planet: any nation, well before the Roman Catholic Church, well before the Eastern Orthodox Church, well before Martin Luther and his Reformation wanted to decide hey, we’re not going to use the other books…

We see Solomon and, in Ethiopia, we see the Ethiopian helps out Jeremiah, we see that an Ethiopian is being baptized by Phillip. So, they’ve had—and he was reading Isaiah 53—we’ve had they’ve had this canon well before it was thought of by the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or even Martin Luther…

I brought in the Book of Jubilees because remember this, the Ethiopians had it first, it did not come around until the Roman Empire took over and they, hold on, this is what they say they say to the Ethiopians, who was actually around messing with Israel in the time of Moses, so the Romans come around and tell the Ethiopians, uhuh, that’s not it, that’s not scripture, uhuh, that’s not scripture. We don’t listen to them, at least I don’t, I don’t listen to what the Romans have to say.

According to this book, because the Ethiopians who were around at the time of Moses at the, around of the time of Solomon at the, around of the time of Jeremiah, even God Almighty says in Amos are you not the children of Ethiopia unto me, He says beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my worshippers, He’s, the Lord loves the Ethiopians, and since He loves them and gave them scripture as well as the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah 53, I didn’t see not one Roman one, Roman, or today’s European, have the scriptures with them but I saw the Ethiopians, but all of a sudden we tell them, uhuh, that’s not scripture…

The Europeans, they’re not our authorities to tell you what to put in Bibles or not. The canon was around well before the Roman Empire, the canon was with the Ethiopians, so if we want to be correct, go to the Ethiopian Canon of the Bible…

Ethiopia, the nation that is actually mentioned in the Old Testament, hanging around the Israelites hang around him Moses married in Ethiopia…

Queen of Shiva and Solomon, Ethiopia, um, Jeremiah when they put him in the well, Ethiopian helped him out, Ethiopian, um, Amos when God speaks…we see that Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch: what is he doing? He’s reading Isaiah 53…the interaction between the Ethiopians and the children of Israel…well before that was any council that you want to put up, anyone that’s canonizing the Bible, Jubilees was there because it’s in the nation of bet Israel, which is in Ethiopia, it is in their canon…

Ethiopia had it, that’s why I appeal, I appeal to somebody that had it first…

God dealt with Ethiopia well before he dealt with anybody any European nation…

Patters emerge, do they not?

One fallacy is the mere asserted implication that older is better, more accurate, but that’s called the historical fallacy.

Having various interactions with Israel from antiquity may have resulted in a reliable canon but is not necessarily a chain of causation.

What was the Ethiopian eunuch reading long after the days of Moses: Isaiah, not Jubilees nor any of the Enoch books.

Now, note that Otis also pointed out, “That canon that they have has the Book of Jubilees, has 1st and 2nd Enoch” and be provides this insight that canon’s contents as he notes that in, “2nd Enoch, God says to Enoch, He says that, I alone, I alone went about, and He said He didn’t find peace within Himself: this is why He starts to create, to bring peace within Himself.”

Well, that’s violates just about any and every aspect of theology proper. It’s not surprising that as a non-trinitarian that appeals to Otis as to why God created. Yet, a trinitarian view elucidates that not only was such not the case but couldn’t be. As I noted in The Original Trinitarian Metaethical Theory for Objective Morality:

God’s nature is relational and benevolent, eternal and free from conflict. God enjoys relationships and encourages His creation to enjoy likewise relationships. Life consists of enjoying relationships with humans grounded upon the enjoyment of an eternal relationship with God. The relationship among the Godhead is truly dynamic as it is enjoyed by three persons and also conflict free since God is one.

2nd Enoch’s, and so the current Ethiopian canon’s, theology is that the god described by them was not perfect, that god lacked, that god was in ontological conflict, etc.

And I noted, “current Ethiopian canon” because of something that Otis didn’t get around to noting: the Enoch books didn’t even exist until a few centuries BC so they were not around at the time when Ethiopians were messing with Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, etc.—they were around when the eunuch encountered Philip but then, again, he wasn’t reading apocrypha.

That 1 Enoch is in the Ethiopian canon doesn’t make that one canon uniquely correct but rather, uniquely incorrect since Jubilees and the Enoch books are folklore from millennia after the Torah.

In fact, that cannon also contains a text titled, The Life of Adam and Eve which claims that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angels to worship Adam.

For more info on those sorts of books, see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

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

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

Reviewing that which TJ Steadman wrote about Nephilim is somewhat challenging since he thinks that they did but also did not make it past the flood and also that Nephilim 2.0 are known as Rephaim plus, he also calls them “giants” and so it will take a few articles to cover all of that ground.

Hereinafter, I will review that which he writes in specific terms to the term “Nephilim.”

In his book Answers to Giant Questions, he notes, “These angels produced giant offspring with human women, and the giants were known as Nephilim.” This is an unsubstantiated and one that cannot be substantiated for, at least, two reasons: TJ Steadman employs the English term “giants” to means various things and generally does not tell us what he means by it in any given usage and also, we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim. Thus, “giant offspring…giants were known as Nephilim” is not only a question begging statement but is also backward, as if Genesis 6 is written in English and was translated into Hebrew. A non-anachronistic and accurate statement would be that Angels produced offspring with human women, and the offspring were known as Nephilim which is a term some modern day versions have a the undefined, generic, vague, and subjective term giants.

TJ Steadman also wrote:

The Nephilim have always been significant figures throughout human history, whether you have heard of them or you think you haven’t.
But if you were in any doubt, consider that most planets of our solar system and some of our constellations are named after them, usually using their Greco-Roman mythological names.
So are the days of our week, and half of the months of our calendar year. You literally can’t go a single day or even look up at the night sky without being reminded of the Nephilim.

I would rephrase the first statement as that The Nephilim may have always been significant figures throughout human history, whether they were alive at the time or were being referred to via what was once history which came to be called myth and legend.

By that planets are named after them, he is taking the Biblical concept of Nephilim, cross-culturally reading them into Greco-Roman myths, and telling us that he thusly knows their names.

I am not altogether discounting a possibility of this but am simply urging caution in going cross-culture since that only complicates the issue of maintain context and tends towards watering things down in order to make them fit.

Many know by now that my view is that many of ancient cultures’ tales share things in common since what was once commonly known and shared history eventually came to be called myth and legend when it was dispersed around the Earth after the Tower of Babel dispersion.

TJ Steadman also asked “Who Were the Nephilim?” and replied:

Depending on your Bible version, in this passage, you may find the word “Nephilim”, or the word “Giants.”
“Nephilim” is transliterated without explanation from the Hebrew, whereas “Giants” comes both from the translation of the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX) where it says Gigantes, and from the direct translation of the Hebrew text.

Well, that is moving a bit too fast. Yes, leaving the term as “Nephilim” would be a transliteration.

However, “Giants” is not a translation but merely a rendering.

Since Nephilim does not mean nor imply anything about unusual height, which is what TJ Steadman is implying at this point, then it cannot be the case that “Giants” if “from the direct translation of the Hebrew text.”
Now, “Gigantes” means “earth-born” and so also implies nothing about height—usual or unusual.

Moreover, the LXX has “gigantes” for “Nephilim” and also “gibborim” and also “Rephaim” and there is no way that those three very different words mean the same thing. It is a terrible idea to render more than one word with just one word and the LXX caused a lot of problems by doing that.

TJ Steadman further elucidates:

The following short passage tells us something of the kind of destruction that the Nephilim wrought on the earth. Violent, grotesque and profane beasts had multiplied all over the land, having spawned from several angels (remembering “sons of God” is a plural term) all over the land.
They were not the only abominable creatures created by the fallen angels, because the text states “all flesh,” which includes animals as well:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Humankind was in enough trouble as it was with their escalating sin and depravity, but when you consider the mutated animals, massive giants and angelic beings bent on destruction, things were really in a horrific and chaotic state.

I can see how he derives the concept of that what he terms “profane beasts…abominable creatures” includes animals and it may not be a big deal but I am unsure the text is to be understood as such—besides the fact that we are told how Nephilim came about but nothing about how any such profanely-abominable-mutated-beast-creature-animals.
Yes, “all flesh had corrupted their way” which brought about “The end of all flesh” and/but that destruction also included well, any living thing including plants, trees, insects, etc.

The question is whether “all flesh” includes animal flesh.

One thing is certain, there is no reliable biblical indication that any such a thing as “massive giants” ever existed (granting that both “massive” and “giants” are subjective terms).

The text has it that “men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” and that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” after which we are told, “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years” so that the usage of “flesh” in v. 12 would refer us back to “men…daughters” thus, human flesh.

But perhaps it did refer to all as in any and every kind of flesh. Still, profane and abominable may be a bit too far, and mutated certainly is (that is the stuff of which theo-sci-fi is made) since the corruption is described in terms of that “GOD saw that the wickedness of man” not animals, “was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his” man’s not animals, “heart was only evil continually” which leads to the declaration, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth” yet moreover, “both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air” but this is about destruction, not a description that they were mutated or some such thing and then God tells us that it was because, “it repenteth me that I have made them.”

TJ Steadman further wrote:

Passages in Genesis 9, Psalm 27 and Numbers 13 indicate that the giants were cannibals, eating human victims alive and drinking their blood:

Genesis 9:3-6 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

This bloodshed and consumption of blood were not outlawed without reason. There must have been a precedent that necessitated the rule, and the precedent was undoubtedly pre-Flood.

Psalm 27:1-2 [A psalm of David.] The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.”

David recalled his battles with Philistine giants and their appetite for human flesh. Undoubtedly this terrifying behavior was well-known earlier than David’s time. When Moses sent the spies into Canaan, they observed first-hand this gruesome phenomenon:

And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature.
“There we saw the giants [Nephilim] (the descendants of Anak came from the giants [Nephilim]); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

The fact that the spies associated the name “Nephilim” with the devouring of the land’s inhabitants shows that this practice was known to them from traditions going back to Noah’s time. We have now seen evidence from both sides of the Flood event, that there were unspeakable violence and cannibalism being perpetrated by giants.
The spread of this violence, depravity and destruction was so severe that in a roughly 1200-year timeframe, the giants had dominated the earth and nearly eradicated humankind. And yet they had so altered the culture of the world in that day that it seemed normal to them.

Firstly, note that he previously referred to Nephilim as “giants” but now to well, apparently what he thinks are, post-flood, Nephilim—excepts he thinks that there were not but also were Nephilim post-flood—and/or Rephaim which he mistakenly thinks that Rephaim are Nephilim 2.0 via some unbiblical means.

In any case, he seems to think that a commandment against not consuming blood implies that “giants” did so but no one imagined any such thing for millennia: not until that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa began spreading—the incessant desire to see “giants” everywhere, even where they are not, and so generally end up inventing them.

TJ Steadman notes, “This bloodshed and consumption of blood were not outlawed without reason. There must have been a precedent that necessitated the rule, and the precedent was undoubtedly pre-Flood.”
Yet, the biblical reason is actually undoubtedly post-flood. He was quoting Gen 9 which records events shortly after the flood. Post-flood was when God allowed the consuming of animals. Thus, He bequeathed commandments about how to do so—and how not to do so.

In the case of the Psalm, the gigorexic (mis) interpretation is to take “wicked…enemies…foes” to mean Nephilim 2.0 but there is no indication that David was dealing with anyone but 100% human Rephaim: not unless you want to see it therein and take statements such as “eat up my flesh” to mean more than overwhelm me, defeat me, murder me, put an end to my flesh, etc.

In fact, the only biblical reference to cannibalism is 2 Kings 6 during one instance when the king of Syria was making war against Israel and caused the Israelites to suffer severe starvation so two women consumed a baby—and other statements foreseeing such terrible circumstances that apparently did not actually come about.

Biblically, the only “Philistine giants,” so singular actually is Goliath which the preponderance of the early manuscripts (the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls and also Flavius Josephus) have a just shy of 7 ft. Also, Biblically, “Philistine giants” means Philistine Rephaim which is accurate since Philistine are an Anakim subgroup who are a Rephaim subgroup.
But, again, there is no biblical indication that Philistines had an “appetite for human flesh” no, not even when it is recorded that God’s promise land “is a land that devours its inhabitants”: note that the land somehow does not, not the people.

I reviewed Num 13 for my opening statement during my debate with TJ Steadman so you can listed to that here for the sake of details.
Even just that the land devours its inhabitants is problematic since it is the statement of unfaithful disloyal spies whom God rebukes. They were contradicting the original report that was that the land was flowing with milk and honey, etc.—note that even TJ Steadman quoted it as that “they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land” which was after the reliable and faithful spies gave a good report.

He reads this as that the “land” does that “associated the name ‘Nephilim’” so that he can pour into that a “practice” known via “traditions going back to Noah’s time” for which there is zero evidence.
Weaving tall tales is problematic: it is always based on partial info that is watered down and peppered with assertions that result in existing yet, unbiblical tales.

Now, if “eat up my flesh” and “a land that devours its inhabitants” means cannibalism by “giant” then it may be that Israelites where also cannibals—and were cannibals whilst loyal to God.

How lovely are your tents, O Jacob! Your dwellings, O Israel!…
God brings him out of Egypt; he has strength like a wild ox; he shall consume the nations, his enemies; he shall break their bones and pierce them with his arrows (Numbers 24:5, 8).

Lastly, TJ Steadman writes this about a supposed “roughly 1200-year timeframe” that “so altered the culture:

In fact, Jesus states:
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

In this form and within this context, that is the most abused, misused, misunderstood, and misapplied texts amongst pop-post-flood Nephilim teachers.

Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah is clearly just about people going about as business as usual while being unaware of coming judgement.
And you can know that by reading the whole statement Jesus made and also the one He made in Luke 17 about how:

…it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

In short, we learn more about TJ Steadman’s eisegesis than about biblical Nephilim.

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

The Israel Institute of Biblical Studies Facebook/Meta page posted Unraveling the Mystery of the Nephilim: Giants or Fallen Angels? wherein the following statement was made:

“The Bible whispers of the Nephilim—beings of incredible strength who roamed the Earth before the great flood. Were they fallen angels cast down from the heavens, or legendary warriors whose feats echo through time? The true nature of the Nephilim is shrouded in mystery, but their story continues to captivate us. What aspect of their story intrigues you the most? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

A certain Maritta Hakola shared this comment

Someone on the Ark must have carried the genom..

I, True Freethinker, replied

You contradicted the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) does that matter to you?

And what makes you think that God failed, that He missed the loophole you figured out, and that the flood was much of a waste?

Maritta Hakola

You are attacking..not having a conversation. I’m not here to win an argument. Stop throwing up your angry bile on people. If and when you are able to have a proper conversation like a human being we can talk.

True Freethinker

Your emotively subjective mis-interpretation of my words on a screen is a personal problem. Are you able to engage the issue or not? You don’t seem to like the implications of your mere assertion so rather than taking it out on me for pointing them out, change your demonstrably mistaken view.

Tracey Williams chimed in with

Maritta Hakola, Not necessarily, some Hebrew scholars consider the use of the Hebrew imperfect in this clause (Genesis 6:4) to allow for repetition: it could be read “whenever” the sons of the gods went into the daughters of men, they bore them children.

True Freethinker

But that whenever was all pre-flood since 1) the flood wasn’t much of a waste, 2) there’s zero reliable indication of post-flood Nephilim, 3) those Angels were incarcerated and 4) there’s only a one time fall of Angels in the Bible.

Tracey Williams

Genesis 6:4 intentionally informs readers that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood “and also afterward.” The phrase anticipates Numbers 13:33, which states very clearly that the large descendants of Anak “came from the Nephilim.” The Anakim were also one of the giant clans described in the conquest narratives of Deuteronomy and Joshua.

I’m aware that tradition talks of a primeval fall that involved one third of the angelic realm, but that’s not found in Scripture. The closest you’ll get is Revelation 12, but that context is the birth and ascension of the Messiah that caused war in heaven.

Again, I’ve not made a dogmatic statement regarding “whenever,” just pointing out that some scholars consider the use of the Hebrew imperfect allows for repetition. The only other explanation would be that the flood wasn’t a worldwide event and was restricted to the known world in the table of nations. It’s interesting to consider the possibilities.

I do know that the Bible is about theological messaging and not an historical record, so once the sin of the watchers was explained, additional polemic evidence against the Mesopotamian stories wouldn’t be necessary.

True Freethinker

Notice that you were forced to artificially insert “the flood” into God’s Word but could only quote God’s Word as stating “and also afterward.”

What makes you read the flood into a statement that says nothing about it?

In fact, the flood’s not mention for the very first time until a full 13 verses later so you’re cheating, you’re reading ahead and then doing a u-turn to anachronistically insert the flood where it doesn’t belong.

Worse yet, by doing that un-hermeneutical thing, that eisegesis, you’re missing that v. 4 is telling you exactly to what days it’s referring: please re-read it without prejudice.

Note how generic you were in telling me that a book, chapter, and verse say something, “Numbers 13:33,” while ignoring key reading comprehension questions such as who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc., etc., etc.

Plus, for some odd reason you didn’t include v. 32 which tells you that you’re about to read an “evil report” and it’s that report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked that, “states very clearly” the literally impossible tall-tale about post-flood Nephilim.

Also, why didn’t you mention that you’re not only relying exclusively on one single verse but one single verse from exclusively non-LXX versions?

When you say, “Anakim were also one of the giant clans” I’m going to guess that you’re no familiar enough with this topic to realize that you’re correct by accident since biblically contextually, “Anakim were also one of the giant clans” means, “Anakim were also one of the Rephaim clans” and so they were, they were a subgroup/clan of the Rephaim tribe.

So yes, Rephaim/Anakim were “described in the conquest narratives of Deuteronomy and Joshua” but not Nephilim—likely why when Moses relates the Num 13 events in Deut 1, he utterly ignores Nephilim—why didn’t you mention that?

Indeed, “primeval fall that involved one third of the angelic realm…not found in Scripture.”

“the Hebrew imperfect allows for repetition” which ends at the flood: if, that is, you’re the least bit concerned about logic, bio-logic, and theo-logic.

The scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood 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.

“the Bible is about theological messaging and” also, “an historical record.”

Your entire theory is based on considering 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked to be infallible but they’re the very ones who invented the un-biblical tall-tale on which you rely.

That brought the discussion to an end 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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Faith Quest YouTube channel posted a video titled Rob Skiba REFUTES Sam Shamoun on Genesis 6? | Who are the NEPHILIM? which actually features Pastor Doug Wilson, Dr. Peter Gentry, and Rabbi Jeff Zaremsky as well.

The vid is a compilation of clips and begin when the host, “who exactly were the Nephilim were they giants or were they something else?” Since biblically contextually, “Nephilim were they giants?” means, “Nephilim were they Nephilim?” then it seems that 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 any of these gent’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

Doug Wilson is up first and notes, “the Nephilim which were giants…the end result of this inter-marriage is giants which is not what you usually get when a Christian marries a non-Christian.” Indeed, “the Nephilim which were giants” means, “Nephilim which were Nephilim” and as for that such inter-marriage don’t result in giants clearly means that his question to the second key question is that it has something to do with subjectively unusual height. That means that the answer to the third key question is, “No” since the answer to the first one is that the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

He continued:

…if the giants were the end result of this marriage and then was the flood, what do we do with Nephilim after the flood?…they were all killed in the flood so there are different possibilities: one is that the same thing happened again after the flood…

Another possibility is that the genetic material from this misbehavior was preserved on the ark in other words, through Noah’s family.

I don’t think that would be true if God’s whole point was to wipe it out, why would He, why would He preserve it?

Of course, same goes for, “the same thing happened again after the flood” since both are un-biblical made up stories about that God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and the latter one also contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

Moreover:

The other, I think the most likely explanation, is that the giants, the Anakim, the Nephilim after the flood are simply given the same name…so the giants after the flood are NBA player, giants…big human beings, not anything supernatural.

Note that he jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants and now throws in Anakim. Well, there’s never been any such thing as Gen 6, “Nephilim after the flood” since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

The Anakim were only giants in the biblical usage due to that they were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

The Anakim were only giants in the Wilsonian usage due to that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) maybe like, “NBA players” and yet, subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Overall, there’s literally zero indication that giants—again, referring to either Nephilim or Rephaim—has anything to do with even, “NBA player, giants…big human beings”—with big being just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.

The host asks, “But what if the Nephilim giants were never the offspring of fallen Angels?” and next up is Peter Gentry:

When it says, ‘the Nephilim were there in those days and also afterward,’ it could mean that before the Angels had sex with the humans, the Nephilim were there and they were also there after the Angels had sex with women. So, it could mean that the Nephilim had nothing to do with the Angels…

I think that is the correct interpretation for two reasons.
First of all, I examined every occurrence of this expression, ‘and also afterward,’…and the second interpretation best fits and suits how this word is used…

There’s a second reason why this is the correct interpretation, the last sentence says, ‘they were the heroes who were from the ancient past, the men of renown.’

In this case, what Moses is doing is he’s de-mythologizing the Nephilim…the text doesn’t tell us who the Nephilim were…they don’t come from the cohabitation of Angels and humans…that’s the correct interpretation.

Well, it does not mean, “before the Angels had sex with the humans” since it’s a simple the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.

Thus, this isn’t about checking contextually disconnected stand alone usage of, “and also afterward” but about the narrative’s focus which tells us how to understand the flow.

As for, “the text doesn’t tell us who the Nephilim were” well, it actually does just that: it tells us the basic time range when they were born, tells us their parentage, tells us that they were mighty and renown, and, of course, by implication, that they didn’t make it past the flood.

Yet, Peter Gentry continued thusly:

In the 3rd Century BC and the 2 Century BC they came to an incorrect interpretation, they thought that the Nephilim were giants who were produced by Angels cohabiting with humans and this got into the Book of Enoch.

And Paul warns his readers against…foolish myth, this is a direct reference to the Book of Enoch which has a long genealogy of all the Angels until you finally come down to Satan. And then they blame all the evil in the world on Satan.

What they’re trying to do is they’re trying to blame chaos and death and evil in the world on Angelic sin instead of blaming it on human sin and the Bible clearly puts the blame on humans.

Here we have again the issue of, “Nephilim were giants”/“ Nephilim were Nephilim.” Yet, his reference to, “the Book of Enoch” really being to 1 Enoch (which is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) and since it has Nephilim as being MILES tall (which is great folklore but poor reality) then he too is misusing that term.

My criticisms of that text don’t include, “trying to blame chaos and death and evil in the world on Angelic sin instead of blaming it on human sin” since it’s not that simple, it’s a package deal: we might as well claim that the Bible isn’t legit since it’s, “trying to blame chaos and death and evil in the world on Satanic (the serpent’s) sin instead of blaming it on human sin.” Chaos and death and evil in the world is due to human sin, Satan’s sin, Angels’ sin, and Nephilim’s sin.

Sam Shamoun is up next with:

Genesis 6:4…says, ‘now there were giants in those days and then afterwards.’ When it says, ‘there were giants in those days’ what days is the author referring to?…the days leading up to the flood, the days before the flood, the days leading up to the flood…

But then it says, ‘there were giants before the days of the flood and then after that.’ How can you have giants existing after the flood if the giants are the offspring of the Angelic sons of God with Earthly women?…

Read carefully, read slowly because if you actually read the passage, the passage doesn’t necessarily say the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of God.

I suppose that it’s by definition that, “those days” refer to, “the days leading up to the flood” but the days leading up to the flood begin with the first day of creation. The Gen 6 timeline begins with, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them”—it’s uncertain when that is, it could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children.

Shamoun is speaking exclusively in terms of giants so it’s hard to follow since we know not to what, to whom, he’s referring by, “giants existing after the flood” but since he at least contextualized that usage as referring to, “the offspring of the Angelic sons of God with Earthly women” then, again, there’s no such thing.

He too commits the reading comprehension/hermeneutical fallacy.

He continues:

This word, giants, appears again in the Pentateuch, the Books of Moses, Numbers 13:31-33. Pay attention to verse 33, ‘but the men that went up with him said, ‘we be not able to go up against the people for they are stronger than we.’ And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched…saying…all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature,’ notice 33, ‘and there we saw the giants.’

Guess what: the Hebrew word is Nephilim, we saw the Nephilim in Canaan. Moses, during the time of the Exodus, the sons of Anak, oh wow, notice the Nephilim are not the sons of the Angels, they’re the sons of a human being named Anak and Anak is a Canaanite, a descendant of
Ham.

Well, he meant, “This word” Nephilim: keep in mind that the appearance of a word does not equate the appearance of they who are identified by that word. Example: I could refer to the first USA POTUS George Washington right now and you could say, “This name, George Washington, appears again in what Ken wrote in 2024 AD” but that doesn’t mean Georgie is alive.

Now, “Pay attention to verse 33” since he didn’t bother telling us that he’s taking seriously an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Also, his reference to Anakim means that he’s relying on non-LXX versions since the LXX doesn’t mention Anakim in that verse.

Thus, he’s just taking one version of a falsehood and making much ado about nothing—especially since Anakim are never referred to as Nephilim even though the 10 unreliable guys merely asserted an impossible relationship between them.

So, it was just a fear mongering scare tactic tall-tale that they saw post-flood Nephilim—and they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible.

Sam Shamoun also merely asserted, “Nephilim are not the offspring of the Angels, they’re a group of human beings who are excessively huge. Goliath is one of them.”

That they were, “excessively huge—which is just as just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as big and giants—comes exclusively from that evil report: the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology–the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

As for, “Goliath is one of them” not so, we’re told that he was a Repha virtually every single time he’s mentioned.

He ends by noting, “The children of the Angels were there when the Nephilim were there, they existed side by side” but, of course, that’s a faulty conclusion based on a faulty mis-reading.

The late pop-Nephilologist Rob Skiba is up next and noted:
Genesis 6:4 itself, I maintain, doesn’t even support the idea of multiple incursions…nothing about Genesis 6:4 even remotely supports the idea that we’re talking about Angels coming back again after the flood.

He said that mostly because he and fellow pop-Nephilologist LA Marzulli used to trade barbs: they both taught/teach un-biblical Nephilology but they differed on just how God failed so they both made up un-biblical tall-tales and both implied that their was the best loophole that God missed and made the flood much of a waste.

Thus, “nothing about Genesis 6:4 even remotely supports the idea that we’re talking about Angels coming back again after the flood” nor that Nephilim came back in any way, shape, form or by any other name.

He very specifically asserts that, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,” which was when, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose,” was, “in the days of Jared” because that’s what folklore in Jubilees from centuries, if not millennia, after the flood asserts.

Skiba’s post-flood Nephilology contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5). Skiba implied that God missed a genetic loophole that Skiba was clever enough to figure out.

He also stated:

I want to unpack Genesis 6:12 because it says that all flesh had be become corrupted. Well, the extra biblical text of Jasher goes into a whole lot more detail and tells you that how they became corrupted, they began to blend species together they begin to blend animals and plants and reptiles and fish and birds and people.

Jasher is just a modern day hoaxed fraud—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. Note that species isn’t biblical taxonomy, kinds are—and no one can tell me what the original Hebrew is behind species since there’s no ancient manuscripts of Jasher.

Yet, like many pop-Nephilologists, Skiba tended to quote anything written by anyone at any time for any reason in any genre, then watered it all down and mashed it all together into an incoherent grand narrative.

He also noted, “Guess what we’re doing today, blending species, ah, now, Yeshua said Matthew 24:37 that the last days would be like the days of Noah.” Yet, Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”

But He kept speaking directly with:

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).

Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.

He emphasizes, “The last 120 years leading up to the flood were all about genetic modification, also confirmed in Jubilee…7:24, ‘they sinned against the beasts and the birds and all that moveth and walketh on the earth and much blood was shed.’”

Well, when you prep your audience to think a certain way and throw half-quoted folklore at them—and then tell them how to put it all together—it may sound good. Yet, the folklore reads thusly (7:21-24):

…owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth, namely, owing to the fornication wherein the Watchers against the law of their ordinances went a whoring after the daughters of men, and took themselves wives of all which they chose: and they made the beginning of uncleanness.

And they begat sons the Naphidim, and they were all unlike, and they devoured one another: and the Giants slew the Naphil, and the Naphil slew the Eljo, and the Eljo mankind, and one man another.

And every one sold himself to work iniquity and to shed much blood, and the earth was filled with iniquity.

And after this they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth: and much blood was shed on the earth, and every imagination and desire of men imagined vanity and evil continually.

Wait, by sin reference wasn’t being made to generic manipulation but rather, the context is, “they devoured one another…they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth” so that was a sin because God had not yet allowed the eating of animals so, “much blood was shed” due to slaughtering animals to devour them.

He also relies on folklore from centuries, if not millennia after the Torah—including Jasher. And he even takes those texts out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext since he merely asserts that to “sin” against those animals was to genetically manipulated them but the text is 100% that it meant that they started eating them (before God allowed the eating of animals) which is how and why, “much blood was shed.”

Skiba noted, “That brings us to the post-flood return of the Nephilim. Of course, we have the flood take place, you know, and then after the flood, the giants are there right away.” Consciously or not, this is a typical pop-Nephilology move: jump from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants since watering things down makes it easy to assert connections where there are none.

Thus, biblically contextually (according to only some English Bibles) there’s zero reliable indication of a, “post-flood return of the Nephilim” ever and, “after the flood, the giants are there right away” merely refers to when Rephaim came to be.

Rob Skiba noted:

Ham is the father of Canaan…who are the Israelites always having to deal with in the land?

The Canaanites, who were the ones that they were consistently told to utterly destroy…when you look at the breakdown of the of their offspring, Ham by far has some very interesting kids, there are many giants in the offspring of Canaan…one in Cush[’s line] but I don’t believe he was born that way, I believe he did something to modify himself and became that way, and that was Nimrod…

Amorites, described by the Book of Amos as being as tall as cedar trees…

See how the tall-tale grows? We jump from Nephilim to Rephaim to Canaanites and then to the final solution, “utterly destroy” post-flood Nephilim. Well, God told us many times why He commanded such things but never said one single word about Nephilim—nor of any (impossible) correlation with them.

As for, “many giants in the offspring of Canaan” well, we know that has zero to do with Nephilim, it has to do with Rephaim and if one insists on that it has something to do with subjectively unusual height then well, sure: some people are subjectively taller than others.

As for that Nimrod, “did something to modify himself” well, that’s just another pop-Nephilology neo-theo sci-fi tall-tale.

And as for, “Amorites, described by the Book of Amos as being as tall as cedar trees” well, Amos 2:9 says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.” He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation. In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they’re only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.

Jeff Zaremsky is up next with:

So, giants: who are these giants well, they were giants just as there were giants in the world. It’s just kind of a statement of fact, ‘there were giants in those days and also afterwards’ that’s all. It’s saying there were giants before the flood, there were giants after the flood: they were living 900 years, they can do a lot of growth in 900 years…

Yeah, there were giants and they were big people back then we still got some of those big people…[Moses is] not saying that these giants were an offspring of evil angels…

We ought to have learned in elementary school to not use a word to define itself. Thus, asserting, “giants…were giants” merely doubly begs the question. Note how simple it is when he misunderstands giants to refer to subjectively unusual height: since that’s all it means then, “there were giants…‘there were giants…’…there were giants…there were giants…there were giants…big people…big people…”

His view is:

Let’s look just two chapters before…the children of Cain, the daughters of Cain…who has a monopoly on livestock, music industry, the arts, and bronze, and iron manufacturing? Cain, Cain’s children, Cain’s offspring and are they the children of God or the children of men? Children of God or children of the Devil? Children of men, children of the Devil…

These are not following God and yet they control the industry, they are men of renown, they have a lot of influence, they are mighty men, they are instructors of every craftsman, of all who play the flute and the harp, they run the livestock industry…

I hope that some of that is hyperbolic. I’m also unsure how or why raising livestock, playing music, metallurgy, etc. is Satanically evil.

But his point is that it was about, “monopoly…industry…influence…instructors…craftsman” which is what, for some reason, is Satanically evil.

That allows him to merely assert that they were the mighty men of renown of Gen 6. That plus the mere assertion that, “the children of Cain” were, “Children of men, children of the Devil.”

Jeff Zaremsky then noted:

God’s people aren’t helping matters because God’s people are uniting with them and deluding the seed…So, the children of men were multiplying…on the earth and having a big influence a bigger influence than the children of God: that’s all it was saying.

I’m also unsure how purchasing such items or being instructed in craftmanship results in, “deluding the seed.”

Thus, he has it that, “‘the sons of God,’ godly people ‘saw the daughters of men’” so that godly people weren’t really godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as a premier for the flood.

Thus, overall, we encountered fundamental level errors from Rob Skiba, Sam Shamoun, Doug Wilson, Peter Gentry, and Jeff Zaremsky. No wonder pop (and much academic) Nephilology is a cesspool of mis-info and dis-info.

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

As I noted in other articles covering what TJ Steadman has to say about Nephilim and Rephaim and Anakim and “giants” is challenging partly through no fault of his own yet, partly though a fault of his.
No fault of his own since these issues are generally considered as a packaged deal which leads to a lot of material to handle from his book Answers to Giant Questions.

Fault of his own because he employs the undefined, subjective, generic, and vague English term “giants” to mean many things and so, sometimes means something about unusual height, sometimes meaning Nephilim, sometimes meaning Rephaim, sometimes meaning Anakim, etc.

Thus, in this case I thought to attempt to focus on his definition, description and usage of “giants.”

He writes:

Before we reach the conclusion of this epic history of the giants, it is time for a reminder or perhaps a cautionary word regarding interpretation. The texts we have been reading are full of all kinds of symbols and imagery, letting us know plainly that we are not meant to take every word at literal face value. Certainly, to do so produces a simply incomprehensible account that is of little, if any value to us.
Knowing that so much of the text is symbolic, we must then guard ourselves against the error of explaining away the events that inspired the original symbols as being merely symbolic in and of themselves. As an example, we cannot use the man Adam as only a symbolic representation of the idea of humanity. Without the real Adam, there is no symbol. The use of Adam as a symbol has to be based on the existence of Adam as a fact.

It is interesting that TJ Steadman tends to offer cautions even whilst failing to be cautious regarding certain issues.

For example, indeed, some texts are “full of all kinds of symbols and imagery” but he will end up claiming that “giants” have something to do with unusual height and even seeks to specify what that height is, or those heights are.

But before you get lost in pondering giants in the Bible just keep in mind that there really is no biblical term for what most people, and especially most pop-researchers, are referring to by “giants”—which is along the lines of the stuff of which tall tales are made, which I contextually term theo-sci-fi. The Bible refers to some people who are “tall” or of “great stature” and tall” and of “great stature” are subjective—in this case, subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft (which means women were short than that, on average).
The issue with the common sense concept of not “explaining away the events that inspired the original symbols as being merely symbolic in and of themselves” is that along the way people do, in fact, just make up stuff out of whole cloth—or rather, out of moth-eaten cloth.

For example, if an explorer travels to a distant land and returns to present a report to the sovereigns who funded the exploration the explorer must sell the exploits or risk not being granted further funding.
Thus, if defeated, might as well claim defeat at the hand of “giants.” And if victorious, might as well claim victory against “giants.”

This is exactly the situation of the contextually relevant portion of Num 13 wherein 12 spies are sent to explore the land, 10 return with a tall tale about what they saw: a tall tale that is termed an “evil report” for which they were rebuked, by the way, you can hear my step by step consideration of this as the opening statement of my debate with TJ Steadman.

Furthermore, he wrote:

The Most High had laid out a plan for the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants. At the time of the dispersion of the nations from Babel, that plan began to unfold, and the dispersion itself was the first stage of a process that would slowly but surely result in God’s people being placed in a position to begin to draw the nations back to Yahweh.

Genesis 11 :8-9 “So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Deuteronomy 4: 19-20 “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.”
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (NETS) “When the Most High was apportioning nations, as he scattered Adam’s sons, he fixed the boundaries of nations according to the number of divine sons, and his people Iakob [Jacob] became the LORD’s portion, Israel a measured part of his inheritance.”

It is rather oddly anachronistic to claim that “the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants” took place “At the time of the dispersion of the nations from Babel” which is when “that plan” first “began to unfold” since that was post-flood and since Nephilim lived pre-flood and eight people and some animals survived the flood then that was when “a plan for the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants” was enacted.

Yet, note that the problem is that I am forced to guess that by “giants” he is referring to Nephilim—since even on TJ Steadman’s own particular, and peculiar, theory the only “giants” pre-Babel were Nephilim.

Now, he quotes three texts but did you notice that none of them make even one single statement about “a plan for the purification of the world from the abomination of the giants. At the time of the dispersion of the nations from Babel”?

Now, he goes on to help us define to what he was referring in a latter portion of his book wherein he writes, “Since the original giants after the Flood (Nimrod being the first of this kind) were normal living humans prior to their transformation at Babel, they already had their own body and spirit just like any normal person.”

He wrote, “God dispersed the giants of Babel throughout the land of Canaan and its surroundings and then set about calling Abraham to create a nation.”

If I may read (biblically) into this, “God dispersed the” people group which eventually came about, who were called Rephaim “throughout the land of Canaan and its surroundings” but it had nothing to do with them being “of Babel”—it is just that he has invented a tall tale about Rephaim being Nephilim 2.0 who were created at Babel.

So now, pre-flood “giants” were Nephilim about whom TJ Steadman and I agree were half-human and half-Angel, as he puts it, “These angels produced giant offspring with human women, and the giants were known as Nephilim,” even though “produced giant…giants were known as Nephilim” is unbiblical and confused. Rather, a biblical statement would be “These angels produced…offspring with human women, and the” offspring, “were known as Nephilim.”

As for the clearly theo-sci-fi claim that Nimrod was the first original giants (OG!!!) after the flood who was human prior to this transformation, see TJ Steadman on the rise and fall and rise of Nimrod aka Enmerkar, Giant, Nephil, Repha, Assyrian, Rahab, Leviathan.

On his view, Nephilim died in the flood, but live on in spirit form as demons (which he gets from pseudopigrapha from millennia after the Torah was written), and/but also that Nephilim physically lived post-flood so that we can know how tall they were based on (the “evil report” mind you) in Num 13:33, and/but that millennia after v. 33 was written a redactor actually edited in the term “Nephilim” (replacing we know not what since there is no manuscript evidence of this), and/but that Rephaim were Nephilim 2.0 so well, that is all very, very messy.

TJ Steadman also writes of being “released”:

…from the awkward position of requiring a worldwide event to eliminate the giants without having proof of a global flood.
A regional flood can still be regarded as effective against the corruption wrought by the sons of God and the Nephilim, despite its locality, because the whole earth relevant to the Biblical context (including everything that unfolded in Genesis 4-6), was indeed inundated.

I will not get into the issue of “proof of a global flood,” since that is not my context, and so will focus on two points: 1) note what I pointed out about him employing the term “giants” to refer to “Nephilim,” in this case and 2) as I have posted elsewhere indeed, whether the flood was global or local is irrelevant to the issue of Nephilim because in either case, they did not survive it—yet, on my (biblical) view they also did not return and never will, in any way, shape, or form: with the qualifying term that of course spirits survive physical calamities but that does not necessarily mean that Nephilim spirits are demons.

After telling us that “giants…Nephilim” did not survive, TJ Steadman goes on to write about “Survival of the Giants” thusly:

…there is more than adequate Scriptural material stating explicitly that only Noah’s family and the preserved animals survived the Flood, but there persist more than a few followers out there of various theories that the giants may have been able to survive the Flood as well.
Let’s consider the logistics of this to humor this absurd notion to its natural conclusion. Suppose the Nephilim delved into some rumored underground tunnels or caves deep in the earth to wait out the Flood. The Flood lasted overall for a long time, whether we take the time given as literal or figurative.
Suppose one found a subterranean air pocket in a cave; could there be enough breathable air for such a long time? What would a family of giants (or a whole race of giants) eat for that time? What about sanitation? It’s clearly not feasible. Especially when we consider that Jesus told us:

Matthew 24:38-39 “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away.”

The Flood event took the Nephilim by surprise, because either they had no idea it was coming and had no time to prepare, or they simply didn’t believe Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). As far as “doomsday preppers” go, these guys were the worst!

Again, he cautions us regarding not believing that “giants may have been able to survive the Flood as well” but he just ends up replacing “survive” with were conjured up via occult means by Nimrod and just came right back so that the end result is virtually the same: both are unbiblical views.

After assuring us that Nephilim did not survive the flood, even if local, TJ Steadman goes on to write:

The text of Genesis 6:4 says plainly that the Nephilim existed both before and after the central event of the pre-historic narrative, namely the Flood, which is the focal point of Genesis from chapters 4 to 9.
Supporting this assertion is the text of Numbers 13:33, in which it is written that the giants found in Canaan came from those same Nephilim that existed before. This raises an important question. Did the original Nephilim survive the Flood, or did the angels procreate once more with human women, or are there other possibilities?

He asserts that “The text of Genesis 6:4 says plainly that the Nephilim existed both before and after…the Flood” but would be unable to quote any such a statement—because no such statement is made, not “plainly” nor vaguely, nor symbolically, etc.

Indeed, since Nephilim did not survive then who are “giants” (this time biblically meaning Rephaim) come from “those same Nephilim that existed before”?

I have gone over this in articles, books, interviews, etc. so the bottom line is that Gen 6:4 states that Nephilim were “in the earth in those days; and also after that,” it does not say “flood” but refers to “days” which TJ Steadman, and most/all pop-researchers (mis) read as referring to the flood.

The question becomes when were “those days” and thus, when was “after that”?

Well, the verse actually tells us since it states, “in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so that is when “those days” were.
But when was that?

Verse 1 tells us, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children.
Thus, “after that” simply refers to after when they first did so which was “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.”

So, they did so and kept doing it yet, whenever those days were, after that only means that: after it began but still pre-flood.

Also, the flood is not mentioned until v. 17 (a full 13 vss. Later) so reading it into v. 4 is reading ahead and then looping back rather than taking the text for what it states in the order it states it.

Now, his reasoning is that he finds support for his mischaracterizing of Gen 6:4 by reading all the way to the “evil report,” actually believing it, and then turning that one single verse into a worldview and hermeneutic via which to (mis) interpret other texts—such as Gen 6:4.
His qualifying term “assertion” regarding Num 13:33 is appreciated, and key, yet, he ends up actually believing the “evil report” and running with it.

That the assertion has it “that the giants” Nephilim, “found in Canaan came from those same Nephilim that existed before” actually “raises an important question” which is not the question he poses but rather: why would we believe unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing, spies who presented an “evil report” for which they were rebuked, wherein they made four claims about which the entire rest of the Bible knows nothing, and who also contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the whole rest of the Bible?

He does make it clear that “At the end of the Flood narrative…the Nephilim have all died.” So, no, there is no biblical indication that “Nephilim survive[d] the Flood” nor that “angels procreate once more with human women” post-flood—since they were incarcerated for their sin, see Jude and 2 Peter 2.

After affirming the supposed accuracy of the “evil report” reference to that “all” mind you “the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature” which is referring to the Anakim and the Amalekites and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites and the Canaanites—and the Nephilim, TJ Steadman tells us “the presence of giants within the population does not necessarily define the entire people group as giants”—but, as generally is the case, he leaves me having to guess to what he is referring by “giants” with any given usage he makes of that useless term.

He also claims “God placed…nations of inhuman giants for destruction” during the conquest narratives yet, those very narratives wherein God tell us many time why He is commanding such things never have God stating one single word about Nephillim nor relation to them—see chapter “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

In my article TJ Steadman on King Og, the Repha “giant” of Bashan, I quoted TJ Steadman to the effect that “Og’s bed measured 13.5 feet long, and six feet wide. It would obviously be safe to assume that Og himself was under these dimensions in the flesh. That does not negate by any means the notion that Og was actually a giant.”

So, here “giant” means something about unusual height—even though he knows that that bed was not an object upon which Og slept but was a ritual bed, “the bed itself was significant because of its intended function” as he puts it, “It was not for sleeping on. It was a bed or couch for the purpose of sexual rituals held in temple worship.”

Thus, the size of the “bed” has no relation to Og’s size.

TJ Steadman asks if we “can expect the giants to return for a final battle, or is this just language conveying the idea of condemnation and judgment?” and replies, “The text of Revelation certainly does not state clearly anything about giants, despite countless allusions to their history.”

That “The text of Revelation” or any other eschatological text “certainly does not state clearly anything about giants” whatever that means in this case, is accurate but I am unsure to what he is referring by “despite countless allusions to their history” much less who “their” is.

TJ Steadman also referred to:

…arguments against the literal giants (or any other supernatural forces, good or bad) as being simply a form of dehumanizing language designed to cast outsiders as undesirable beasts or as utopian representation of the ideal…
The Scriptures never cast enemies as giants simply to (ironically) belittle them. Look at the faithless report of the spies in Numbers 13. If the spies had considered the inhabitants of the land as inferior, then what were they so afraid of?…Joshua didn’t say that the Canaanites were not giants. His only point of difference with the report of the other spies was in Yahweh’s ability to overcome them.

Now, without defining the term “giants” there cannot be a discussion about “literal giants,” especially when he uses that term in many different ways.

Again, biblically there is no such word as “giants” but there are references to Nephilim, to gibborim, to Rephaim, to Anakim (a Rephaim subgroup), and to being tall or of great stature. Thus, there have been such things as Nephilim, gibborim (merely meaning might/mighty), Rephaim, Anakim and people who were tall/of great stature.

The actual case is that “The Scriptures never cast enemies as giants” period—unless we need to replace the useless term “giant” for something like Rephaim, which the context would dictate, which the Hebrew would actually state, actually.

As for the “faithless report,” indeed, they did not consider “the inhabitants of the land as inferior” because, as the reliable part of the report, the original report states, they (itinerate tent dwellers) were faced with “the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great.”

One problem with the statement “Joshua didn’t say that the Canaanites were not giants” is that this was not a point-by-point formal debate. We know that it is untrue that “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature” because such a thing is not even hinted at anywhere else in the whole Bible and so we can only believe that if we take the word for it of utterly unreliable people.

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

We get a succinct elucidation of some views of the Gen 6 affair:

Some hold that the “sons of God” were fallen angels “who did not keep their proper domain” (Jude 6-7, compare “as Sodom and Gomorrah”; 2 Pet. 2:4-9).

Accordingly, this intrusion into the human sphere produced a race of wicked giants (Gen. 6:4—6).

Others hold that since angels are spoken of in a sexless way (compare Matt. 22:30), and because the words “took wives” signify a lasting marriage, the reference has to do with the breakdown of the separation of the godly line of Seth by intermarriage with the godless line of Cain.

A refinement of the latter view holds that the expression “sons of God” refers to all the godly, and “daughters of men” to all the ungodly, irrespective of their natural paternity.

Whichever view is held, it is obvious that Satan attempted so to corrupt the race that the Messiah could not come to redeem man. But God salvaged a remnant (Gen. 6:8ff.), and a godly line was preserved.

However, there is no remedy for rebellion against God; the judgment predicted by Noah’s ancestor fell (Jude 14-15; compare Gen. 7:11; Is. 1:2-7,24—25).

The, “compare” statement directs us to that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

Also, 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.

As for, “a race of wicked giants” well, biblically contextually that means, “a race of wicked Nephilim” since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

It’s not at all the case that, “angels are spoken of in a sexless way” and Matt. 22:30 doesn’t even hint of any such thing (it quotes Jesus stating that the loyal, “Angels of God in heaven” don’t marry): Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

As for the, “godly line of Seth…godless line of Cain” well, since there’s no such thing in the Bible then the Sethite view is not only a late-comer of a view but is based on myth, prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero)—apparently there were no attractive female Sethites and no attractive male Cainites.

Regarding, “that the expression ‘sons of God’ refers to all the godly, and ‘daughters of men’ to all the ungodly” well, this poses the same problem as the Sethite view has, the godly weren’t really godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood. Also, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.

As for that, “God salvaged a remnant” such is why there’s never been any such thing as post-flood Nephilim, of course.

We find some vaguely regarding the English word giants and I already noted one. The other is the 98% of usage since the Scofield Annotated Study Bible has a note that reads, “Og…An Amorite. King of Bashan who was defeated by Moses. He was the last of the giants of Rephaim. This victory was recalled and celebrated.” The phrase, “giants of Rephaim” biblically contextually reads as, “Rephaim of Rephaim.”

Now, on the word, “Rephaim” a note has, “Literally Giants” and then another note along the way has, “giants. Hebrew Rephaim.”

So, which is which? If giants equals Rephaim then, “Literally Giants” means, “Literally Rephaim” and “giants. Hebrew Rephaim” means, “Rephaim. Hebrew Rephaim.” And, of course, that is exactly how to read the English Bibles that use that English word.

Yet, most who write that way imply something vague about merely subjectively unusual height. Such is why statements such as, “Literally Giants” are made even though such statements are meaningless—beyond the uselessly vague implication of merely subjectively unusually tall.

The answer to, “Literally Giants” are the questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

For, “Valley of Rephaim” it has, “Literally valley of the giants” which is circular since we were (rightly) told, “giants. Hebrew Rephaim.”

The Scofiled Annotated Study Bible also provides a chart of what begins with the statement, “GIANTS IN THE LAND Although Goliath is the most well-known giant in the Bible, there are several places that refer to very large people living in the land.”

See what happened there? It’s typical of English authors to use the word giants without defining it or defining it but then re-defining it along the way.

Before it merely rendered Rephaim (and Nephilim) but now the usage is something about being, “large”—which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.

The charts reads thusly:

Giants on the earth                             Genesis 6:4

Giants in the Promised Land              Numbers 13:33

The people named Emim                    Deuteronomy 2:10-11

The people named Zamzummim         Deuteronomy 2:20

Og, King of Bashan                            Deuteronomy 3:11, 13

Children of Anak                                 Joshua 15:14

Goliath                                                1 Samuel 17:4

Ishbi-Benob                                        2 Samuel 21:16

Saph                                                    2 Samuel 21:18

Brother of Goliath                              2 Samuel 21:19

Man of great stature                           2 Samuel 21:20

Reviewing:

“Giants on the earth” if subjectively unusual height is meant then Genesis 6:4 refers to no such thing.

As for, “Giants in the Promised Land” well, that’s a multi-issue since 1) that’s an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked, 2) they asserted that “all the people that we saw” were all, “of great stature” which we can’t verify (see my article Were “all the people” in Canaan “of great height”?), and 3) they merely asserted that they saw post-flood Nephilim (which is impossible) and that they were very, very, very big which was just a tall-tale.

“The people named Emim” are like unto, “Children of Anak,” the Anakim, and, “The people named Zamzummim” since Zamzummim (or Zuzim) is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Emim and Anakim were Rephaim subgroups like clans of a tribe. Yet, the only thing we’re contextually told about them is that they were, “tall” on average—and that is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants—and is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

“Og, King of Bashan” was a Repha and we’ve no physical description of him.

“Goliath” was a Repha and the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. so, that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

“Brother of Goliath” (more likely a son) was also a Repha, of course, and we’ve no physical description of him.

“Man of great stature” was one of Goliath’s sons and, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants or tall.

“Ishbi-Benob” and, “Saph” were also Goliath’s sons and we’ve no physical description of them.

See the problem with chasing the English word giants around a Hebrew Bible? If the point was to point out subjectively unusual height then only Rephaim fulfill that: on average and, again, subjectively.

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

Under consideration is the website Revelation’s Message’s article by Brian Lloyd titled Nephilim, who were they, and why?

Unfortunately, upfront Lloyd asserts, “Some or all of the people named in [Gen 15] verses 18 to 21 are considered Nephilim and had to be displaced by Israel at a later date, when they took possession of those lands under the leadership of Joshua” but there’s literally zero indication of any of those assertions so we shall see how that conclusion came to be some sort of premise or primary point.

It’s note that, “on occasions the term ‘angels’ are interchangeable with ‘sons’, and the original Hebrew can be either word, according to context” yet, technically, it’s not just sons benim (or banim) but bene ha Elohim or bene Elim or ben Elyon. It’s also noted, “Septuagint translates ‘angels’, (the PshittA translates ‘sons of God’ looked on the ‘daughters of human beings’, see: Ancient Aramaic Manuscripts, Pshitta O and A:).  This states that the ‘sons of God’ were not human!”

I’d note that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

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.

For some odd reason, it’s noted, “either in the form of angels, or other form, they took human women, and had children by them!” but the form of Angles is the form of human, and no other, since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

We’re rightly told, “the creatures that were born, (Gen. 6:4) were called ‘Nephilim’.  The KJV translates to the word ‘Giant’, but the Hebrew is ‘nephiyl’, which is from the root ‘napha’, which means (‘to fall’)!”: just a note, Giants isn’t a translation, but a mere rendering.

Next, Brian Lloyd noted that, “As they mated with human women, they clearly were human or near human sized” which is the only size that we have indication of for them. Yet, we’re told, “however their offspring were large in size, both male, female and children, and called Nephilim, which has been confirmed archaeologically; see listings on Google.” I’m unsure why that site advertises for Google or why we’re merely directed to an utterly generic non-citation as, “see listings.” Apparently, we’re supposed to search online for something as vague as, “Nephilim archaeology” and deal with thousands of incoherent half-baked tall-tales. Also, we need to keep an eye out for how Lloyd will justify the, thus far mere assertion, that Nephilim were, “were large in size”—even though, “large” is a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word.

Yet, we have to still wait since the next thing we’re told is, “The Nephilim were of great size, according to much evidence” none of which is mentioned, “between 9ft. to 15ft. even over 30ft. tall” for which there’s zero reliable indication.

Yet, we are told, “The tombs of the Marduk kings of Babylon were approx.14 ft. in length, which together with other evidences from Scripture, such as Goliath, shows the size and physical power of these creatures.” Yet, it’s merely asserted that they were Nephilim and virtually every single time Goliath is mentioned, we’re told that he was a Repha, not a Nephil.

As for the tombs, well, tombs are larger than the person, by definition, and even their individual sarcophagus are larger, by definition: consider, for example, that King Tutankhamun’s sarcophagus was 8.25 ft./2.53 m. but he was 5.11 ft./1.56 m. and some large sarcophagus were meant to hold more than one corpse.

Yet, just after we’re told about their size, we’re also told, “It has also been speculated” by unnamed personage/sources, “that they may still exist in smaller size.” We might as well get to this part right now: we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim so their size is a non-issue—yes, even if that debunks 100% of pop-Nephilology.

Yet, we’re told, “The reason for this idea, is that both King Saul and King David, did not eliminate them completely, as they had been ordered to do, by Almighty God! The order from God to eliminate Nephilim” yet, there’s literally not one single such order in the entire Bible. Also, note the mere assertion of post-flood Nephilim but not only is there zero reliable indication of that, it implies that God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

It’s tragic that Brian Lloyd argued, “When the order was given, it was understood by the great men of God, what was at stake, and who they were to kill!  In today’s world, even though men kill many more than the Biblical slaughter of Nephilim, many people hold up their hands in horror at the ‘Just’ request of Almighty God, and use the Biblical account as reason to criticise God, and to ridicule Christ-Ones, (Christians); because they are ignorant of the evil spiritual forces at play under the control of Satan, at present!”

It’s tragic because it’s meant to defend God’s honor but anyone can read the Bible and find that such a mere assertion is fallacious so personages who make such arguments only make the issue even worse: the initial issue is still an issue and that some Christians make up un-biblical tall-tales to attempt a defense discredits them and makes it appear as if there’s no defense. Well, God told us many times why He commanded such things and never said one single word about Nephilim, it was about centuries worth of unethical practices of various sorts: “abominable pagan practices, and sexual perversions” as Lloyd goes on to note—see the, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” chapter of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

Next comes a style name-game whereby we’re told, “The land promised by God to the Jews, was populated by various tribes.  The Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Girgashites, and Jebushites…known collectively variously as; Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, Horim, Zamzummim, and Avim.”

Brian Lloyd doesn’t seem to be aware that, “Anakim, Rephaim, Emim…Zamzummim” are one in the same: Zamzummim (aka Zuzim) is just an aka for Rephaim and Anakim and Emim were subgroups of Rephaim, like clans of a tribe.

Incidentally, yet utterly key, note that there’s zero indication of Nephilim in any of that.

We’re then told, “The question as to whether they still exist on a smaller physical scale, is undetermined” well, actually it’s 100% determined and in more than one way: again, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim so we can’t even refer to, “a smaller physical scale” and the same goes for Rephaim, by any other name, since they were just subjectively, “tall.”

It’s also stated, “The last verse of Zechariah,14:22, speaks rather strongly in this context, ‘and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite (Nephilim?) in the house of the Lord of Hosts’!” no, not Nephilim, of course not, that would literally be impossible.

It’s then asserted, “It is implicit in Genesis, that there has been previous Creation/s” even thought, “We are given no detail on these” nor even a single mere hint. Yet, we’re told that Dr. J.R. Jochmans’ books, Old Strange Relics Ignored by Science and The Genesis 1:1 Enigma elucidate something that millennias worth of Bible scholars have somehow managed to miss—for what it’s worth.

We’re told, “The Smithsonian Institute was subject to a Supreme Court action in 2014, that ruled in 2015 that documentation of the destruction of thousands of Ancient humanoid giant skeletal remains in the 1800s be ‘declassified’”: this is a merely uncritical repeating of a mere assertion from a literally parody website: see chapter, “Giant Skeletons Reported in Old Newspapers Accounts” in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

This is all part of a wild conspiracy theory about how, “The destructive actions were ‘apparently’ taken, to not conflict with the new Evolution ‘Theory’ of Charles Darwin, and others” and something about how finding, “giant” skeletons would prove the Bible—even though no one in the Bible is taller than 7.5ft.

It’s then noted, “Noah and his family were free from Satan’s corruption of the Adamic seed!” which somehow tied into the Gen 6 affair. And also, “The…flood…killed all the Nephilim” which begs the question of how the Brian Lloyd manages to get them past the flood, past God.

Well, “a further eruption of Nephilim took place (Gen. 6:4)” yet, that implies that God failed and that verse doesn’t even hint at any such thing. The theory is, “The object of Satan on this occasion was to populate Canaan ahead of the ‘children of Israel’, (Gen.12:6), and so to contest for the ‘Promised Land’ (Gen. 15:15-21)” and yet, the patriarchs, et al., were told who lived in and around that land but none of them were ever told a single word about Nephilim.

We then come to a section titled, “Nephilim in the Future?” regarding that, “It is conjectured by some commentators, that the effort of Satan via Nephilim is not yet finished since, apparently, God failed. Well, the only, “some” noted is, Charles Welch’s book This Prophecy which tells of such an un-biblical tall-tale such as, “He…refers to Deut. 3:1-13, which showed Og king of Bashan, king also of his own brood of giants (Deut. 3:13) where, of course, you just need to swap out the exciting English term, “giants” fill the gaps with the Hebrew Repha/im and not be left with any tall-tales to sell to Christians.

Now, Lloyd then takes a little bit of a step back with, “Satan’s people (whether Nephilim or not) are prominent in the attempts to thwart Israel” but it then take a gigantic leap forward from, “whether Nephilim or not” to, “Isa. 26…refer[s] to Nephilim: In Isa. 26:14, ‘They are dead, they shall not live’; they are Rephaim (Nephilim), they shall not rise: This is the corrected translation of the A.V., which uses the word ‘deceased’, instead of Rephaim!”

This is part of the name-game: just merely assert, “Rephaim (Nephilim),” which is linguistically and biologically incoherent, and you can then merely keep asserting post-flood Nephilim—and do so right after, “whether Nephilim or not.” Well, that verse refers to rapha/im since the root rapha ranges in meaning from healing to dead so many pop-Nephiologists merely assert that rapha (or you can even have rephaim, if you want) refers to the (100%) human Rephaim people group.

We then get to, “If the Nephilim survive, or are reintroduced by Satan at that time in the mode of Gen. 6” but such as utterly key point in the building of such an un-biblical tall-tale can’t just be bypassed with a mere, “If…or.”

It’s then notes, “If the Nephilim theory is correct…” well, the biblical one is correct but doesn’t include any room for what has been made of it by post-flood pop-Nephilologists.

Yet, we’re told, “in the future as in the past; then the statement in Zech. 14:21, ‘there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts’, may have special significance!  As Nephilim collectively were known as ‘Canaanites’, that verse implies that they may have at some stage infiltrated the Priesthood of Israel, and also corrupted the original ‘Biblical Torah’!” so you can see how utterly incoherently fallacious Nephilology—to which you can add that there’s literally zero indication in all of human history of, “Nephilim collectively were known as ‘Canaanites’”—damages both theology proper and bibliology: now you have a God who failed to be rid of Nephilim via the flood and failed to preserve His, “Biblical Torah!”

But the Lloyd isn’t done yet, “This comment certainly seems confirmed by Jesus when addressing the Pharisees in John 8:44, where He states ‘you are of your father the devil’!  (This is the verse that the great Martin Luther mistakenly used to condemn all Israel; instead of  just the Pharisees)!” and this is the verse that Brian Lloyd mistakenly used to condemn all Pharisees since Jesus was manipulated by only quoting one single verse from John 8, not the one wherein Jesus affirms, “I know that you are offspring of Abraham.”

Thus, overall, the article could use some editing when it comes to linguistics and reliance of the unreliable regarding post-flood Nephilim which only creates problems since fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.

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

Pillar College posted a video fully titled The Nephilim: Ancient Giants of Myth and Legend Explained in 2024 which is an interview with someone who isn’t identified.

It’s noted that Nephilim, “first appear in Genesis chapter 6” and it’s noted that the, “im” ending in, “Nephilim” is, “plural”—technically, it’s male plural.

A version that reads, “Nephilim” is quoted and it’s then noted, “generally it’s translated, ‘the giants’”—technically, that’s a rendering, not a translation.

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

Do those two usages agree?

If consistent, biblically contextually, the usage is that it refers to Nephilim, by definition.

It’s noted, “Nephilim were the product of the relations between sons of God, bene [ha] Elohim and the daughters of man” which, it’s concluded, refers to, “sons of the gods” (we’re not told who those gods are) and humans.

We’re told, “the backstory of this is you, if you read in both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, there are comments about who Satan was and then his fall and the idea, and we pick this up also in Revelation 12, that when he was kicked out of heaven…God kicked him and a third of the other elohim, the sons of God, out of heaven and where does it say He sent them? To the Earth…He sent them to, this planet was not yet inhabited by humans, that’s why Genesis 1 starts out, ‘the earth was without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep’ it was void.”

As for Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, see my post The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.

Yet, the rest of the comment is anachronistic. Rev 12 is clearly a chronological chapter but doesn’t begin when, “he was” first, “kicked out of heaven” since it has it that, “God” will kick, not the past tense, “kicked him and a third of the other Elohim, the sons of God, out of heaven.” It has that as a post-Jessus’ ascension event and not when, “this planet was not yet inhabited by humans” so it has nothing to do with, “the earth was without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep’ it was void.”

Rev 12 starts with Satan already being the dragon so it picks up when he’s already fallen, it then has Jesus’ birth and ascension, then the war in heaven followed by Satan and, “his Angels” being cast to Earth thereafter.

We’re then told, “every time after every day” of creation, “God says, ‘Ah it is good…it is good’ and then after day six, when He creates man He say, ‘it’s very good.’ If it’s all good where did the snake come from? Where did the serpent come from? Where did Satan come from? He was already here.”

It’s not so much a matter of, “where” he came from but of when and the Gen 3 timeline is the time during which he fell.

It’s noted, “when you get to this passage that we just read from, Genesis 6, Satan’s trying to create his beings in his own image.” Well, that may be some manner of speaking but the fact is that Satan’s only known role in the Gen 6 affair is that he cast the 1/3 of Angels to Earth—which would be during the Gen 6 timeline: the beginning of that timeline, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.”

A question is displayed on the vid asking, “How big were the Nephilim”? the reply to which is, “there are several names that are use, the Nephilim is the first name. Studies have shown, and we find it even in the Book of Enoch, okay, so the Book of Enoch is not in our Bible but it was in the Bible, so to speak, of the New Testament people before the canon was decided upon, what should be in the Old Testament, what should be in the New Testament, both in the Book of Jude and Second Peter, there are references to the Book of Enoch.”

There’s literally zero indication that, “there are several names that are use” for Nephilim.

I realize it’s a vid and a segment of a longer interview at that (11 mins, 57 secs) but the studies go unnamed and uncited.

It’s tragic that the implications are that, “the Book of Enoch,” he really means 1 Enoch, “was in the Bible” because, Jude quotes Enoch and others may paraphrase it: that’s a non-sequitur. Well, Paul quoted Geek poets, are we to then assert that those texts were, “in the Bible”?

It also wasn’t noted that 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

We’re told, “the Book of Enoch says that the Nephilim were 300 cubits high…450 ft.” One reason we can know that the text is folkloric is assertions such as that Nephilim were well, hold on: it actually claims that they were 3,000 and measures as per ells which amounts to being miles tall which is great folklore but poor reality.

The interviewee ends up stating, “was Enoch wrong, I don’t know” but does seek to support it by making appeals to that, “nobody knows how things like Stonehenge and Easter Island and even the pyramids were formed, right, I mean did, how did that happen, they had no equipment, as far as we know” which is a double argument from silence.

It’s then asserted, “So, you got Nephilim. Then later on they’re called Rephidim: so Goliath was a Rephidim. Goliath, as we know, was about 9 and 1/2 ft tall.” Rephidim is actually a place name, he’s supposed to be referring to Rephaim.

Yes, Goliath was a Repha but there’s literally zero reliable indication that Rephaim is an aka for Nephilim.

Also, why were we not told that the Masoretic text has him at that 9.5 ft height yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

Yet, that’s all irrelevant since, again, the question was about Nephilim but he replied about a Repha and merely asserted that Rephaim equals Nephilim.

It’s then noted, “when Moses sent the spies up into Canaan and they came back, 10 of them, terrified because, ‘we seemed like, little’ ‘we saw giants in the land and we seemed like little grasshoppers in their sight.’” It’s interesting that in the vid, he very quickly included the qualifier, “10 of them” yet that’s the key but for some odd reason, he didn’t elucidate that he’s actually exclusively relying on, believing and applying one sentence from an evil report (Num 13:30-33) by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked—guys who just made up an impossible tall-tale and contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

That is the only physical description of Nephilim in the Bible and so the dirty little secret is that we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so their height is a non-issue.

We’re then told, “Amorites and the Amalekites which were, kind of, the tribal names for some of the Nephilim” which is another mere assertion for which there’s literally no indication.

It’s then noted, “King Og and Shihon who are both described as [changes the pronunciation to] Rephi’im, they’re sons of Anak they, and, and they’re beds are referred to as being 13 ft long, you know and, 6 feet wide and, and they were the last, according to the text there, of the Nephilim.”

Yet, they were Rephaim, it’s unknown is they were specifically Anakim (Anakim being a clan of the Rephaim tribe) and we’re told of Og’s bed, not, “they’re beds” plural. We’ve no physical description of either of them and merely asserting that a bed has something to do with height is based on many mere assumptions: it was a ritual object, not something on which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

As for, “they were the last, according to the text there, of the Nephilim” there’s literally no such statement in the entire Bible. Firstly, something like that was stated about Og, not Shihon, and secondly, he was said to be the last of the Rephaim, not Nephilim (Deuteronomy 3:11).

We’re then told, “so later on there still seem to be giants but they’re called other names, Rephidim.”

Well, it would seem that the answer to the second key question above is that his usage is something vague about subjectively unusual height which means that the answer to the third key question is, “no.” And that’s because in the English Bibles which employ it, the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

But what of subjectively unusual height? Well, sure Goliath was about just over 1.5 ft. taller than the subjective average, we’ve no physical description of Og, and we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim. Ergo, the reply to how big Nephilim were was a non-reply.

It’s then noted, “the whole purpose of the flood, apparently, is to wipe out this aberrant race created in the image of Satan, the fallen Elohim and, um, so, but you can’t drown a spirit. So, you asked me earlier were they spirits or physical they, they were drowned as, as you know, beings, except the spirits, and it is thought, generally, pretty widely, that the, uh, the residue of the Nephilim, or the spirits which, which are today the demons.”

After that, it’s noted, “Angels are not elohim and, and really there were no fallen Angels, what, what fell were the elohim that went with Satan.”

Note what just happened here:

He told us that there were post-flood Nephilim, by any other name.

He told us, “the whole purpose of the flood, apparently, is to wipe out this aberrant race.”

If that was, “the whole purpose” but there were post-flood Nephilim then God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

He didn’t get around to telling us how it was that Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

He told us that there were post-flood Nephilim that were physical and could be described as very tall—by the unreliable.

Yet, he seems to take a step back to merely claiming spirit post-flood Nephilim (as 1 Enoch has) along with another generic uncited assertion about something to do with, “it is thought, generally, pretty widely” that demons are dead Nephilim. Well, for some odd reason, he didn’t tell us that he’s merely asserting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah—for a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Also, he previously argued that, “God kicked…a third of the other elohim, the sons of God, out of heaven” specifically based on, “Revelation 12” which very specifically identifies the 1/3 as, “Angels.” Yet, he now merely asserts, “Angels are not elohim.”

He also merely asserts, “really there were no fallen Angels” yet, Jude wrote of, “angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling” and 2 Peter 2 reference that, “God did not spare angels when they sinned.”

Pillar College’s mission statement reads that it, “educates, inspires, and equips students for excellent scholarship, service, and leadership. Rooted in and committed to Christian faith and love, PC fosters intellectual, spiritual, and social development among its diverse student population at various instructional sites.”
It’s stunning that such a Christian academic institution is charging student to lean un-biblical, incoherent, anachronistic pop-Nephilology.

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