Shepherd Campbell wrote an article titled Nephilim Giants for the Israel, a history of site.
Since biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giants” means, “Nephilim Nephilim” we will have to discern between the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles vs. his usage.
He notes that the Gen 6 records what he puts as that, “The corruption of the earth was widely credited to the Nephilim in Genesis. The earth had become so corrupt and perverted that God felt the simultaneous destruction of earth and man was the only solution…to destroy the earth and every living thing upon it.”
He has it that, “an unknown race of beings called ‘sons of God’. Perhaps these were human, perhaps divine…produced offspring…Nephilim giants.” As for the unknown beings well, 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.
Shepherd Campbell asks and answers, “Was the giant Goliath a descendant of the Nephilim? Could Goliath have been a distant descendant of the Nephilim? Goliath may have been closely related to the giants from Numbers who lived in the land of Canaan prior to the Conquest under Joshua”: keep an eye especially on the latter point—stand by.
He notes, “The controversy of this passage rests on the interpretation and identity of the ‘sons of God’, also known as the Nephilim giants” yet, Nephilim were offspring of the sons of God which is something he goes on to state, “Nephilim giants are the offspring of these mysterious ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men.’”
He explores one alternative option which is, “the ‘sons of God’ refers to the sons of Seth, ie, the human male descendants of Seth; and the ‘daughters of men’ is taken to mean the daughters of Cain, ie, human females descended from the lineage of Cain” along with a fantasy about, “the cursed seed of Cain” which somehow led to, “unholy marriage.”
Pray tell: why weren’t there any attractive female Sethites nor attractive male Cainites?
In any case, the Sethie view is a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice, and which only creates more problems than it solves—so, more than zero.
We end up getting the answer to his usage of, “giants” in that he counter-argues, “If the Nephilim giants from Genesis were the descendants of Cain, why would such a union produce giants, or mighty men of renown?” Thus, he’s clearly implying a usage of giants which is as useless as vaguely referring to some generically subjective level of height above the parochial average: which means virtually nothing.
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.
Shepherd Campbell concludes, “Evidence continues to support the theory of the Nephilim giants being a by-product of angelic and human unions.”
He notes, “Angels can appear in physical, human form. They can eat food, walk, and talk just like humans. There are numerous instances in the Bible of angels appearing to men and women in male forms” but it’s not a case of, “can…appearing…” but rather, 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.
He points out, “The King James translates ‘Nephilim’ as ‘giants’. This, however, is not an accurate translation of the word. Nephilim comes from the root, naphal. Naphal has been translated as, ‘fallen ones’. A more accurate translation is, ‘to fall’, ‘lie’, ‘be cast down’, ‘fail’” which is why, “giants” isn’t a translation but rather a rendering.
Campbell wrote, “A similar term is found in Aramaic culture. Nephila was used in Aramaic culture to describe the constellation Orion. The linguistic resemblance of Nephila and Nephilim are clear. From this, it followed that the Nephilim giants were the semi-divine ancestors of Orion, in Aramaic culture.”
It’s more like that one of the usages of Nephila (aka naphiyla) is referring to Orion. As for, “linguistic resemblance of Nephila and Nephilim” well, nephila/naphiyla means the same as naphal: fallen/to fall/feller/to cause to fall, etc. Some demand that it means giant but that’s circular since it begs the question: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in Aramaic sources? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
Thus, it’s too (myopically) specific to conclude, “Nephilim giants were the semi-divine ancestors of Orion, in Aramaic culture.”
I ran across the article Biblical astrology: Orion which notes, “Orion, the mighty hunter, is Kesil in the Hebrew, a strange word that is also translated as fool. According to Peake’s commentary, Orion is Nephila in Aramaic [p260], which means that the Nephilim – a race of giants – were the descendents of Orion. A very similar word, (H5307 [naphal]) means the fallen ones, although the etymology is uncertain. The Nephilim could then be identified with the Orionids meteor shower.”
It’s not, “Orion…means that the Nephilim” but that via some linguistics machinations, some correlate them. As for, “Nephilim– a race of giants” keep in mind two things:
1) biblically contextually, “Nephilim– a race of giants” means, “Nephilim– a race of Nephilim” which is redundantly useless.
2) he means, “Nephilim– a race of vaguely, generically, subjective level of height above the parochial average” and yet, 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, “Nephilim could then be identified with the Orionids meteor shower” well, if I had to interact with that concept I would say that meteors are called shooting stars, that there are biblical allowances for referring to Angels as stars, and that meteor shower can be symbolic of the fall of Angels: as strained as that my be in terms of levels of linguistics abstraction.
Campbell then tells us, “The Greek Septuagint translates Nephilim as ‘gegenes’. Gegenes implies ‘giants’, however the word has little to do with size and strength. The correct translation of ‘gegenes’ is ‘earth born’. In fact, the Greek mythological Titans were described as Gegenes. Indeed, the Nephilim giants in Genesis were also earth-born beings. This meant they were the offspring of diving beings and humans, and they were born on earth, as opposed to created in the heavens.”
It would have been refreshing for him to have written the English Bibles’ usage of the word, “‘giants’…has” nothing, “to do with size.”
More typically, the Septuagint/LXX uses gigantes (or gigas) both of which refer to the Greek false goddess Gaia with the former, indeed, referring to earth-born.
Yet, “the Greek mythological Titans were described as” gegenes/gigantes but why the LXX uses that term is unknown. Was it because Titans and Nephilim were both of vaguely, generically, subjective level of height above the parochial average or both tyrannical or both hybrids? It’s unknown.
Also, there were more than one generation of Titans with some having the lower bodies of serpents and a hundred hands. Well, we can assume that the LXX renderers weren’t fixated on height since they also rendered gibborim as such but that’s just a descriptive term for might/mighty and concepts/descriptions don’t have sizes: might isn’t gigantically tall.
He notes, “God allotted man 120 years on the earth before He destroyed it. One hundred and twenty years would have been more than enough time for the Nephilim in Genesis to corrupt all of man, and spread their influence across the globe…from the rain forests of South America, to the Far East.” Yet, they didn’t first come into being at the beginning of the 120 year period but, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children. As for, “from the rain forests of South America, to the Far East” since those were pre-flood days what, pray tell, were South America and the Far East back then—and wherever they were, they would have been washed away in the flood.
He then references, “the book of Enoch” without telling us which one and notes, “The Catholic Church deemed this book heretical. However, the ancients viewed this work as divine scripture. Jesus Christ and His disciples would have been thoroughly familiar with the book of Enoch . Astonishingly, the New Testament resonates with themes and passages found in Enoch’s writings.”
Well, “ancients” is a tragically vague term and as for being, “familiar with” well, I’m also familiar with those books and can tell you that 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah and the others are even worse—see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
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.
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.
Executive editor of Archaeology, Mark Rose, wrote When Giants Roamed the Earth for that journal’s Volume 58 Number 6, November/December 2005.
It’s noted:
Mark Twain parodied petrifaction hoaxes with his account of the discovery of one, which some newspapers took as a true story. He also aimed his humor at the Cardiff Giant.
Gideon Emmons and Henry Nichols are nowhere listed among the heroes of American archaeology, but the discovery they made on October 16, 1869, captured the nation’s imagination. Digging a well on the farm of William “Stub” Newell in the hamlet of Cardiff, New York, they hit stone three feet down. Clearing the soil, they recognized the shape of a foot, and one of them uttered the immortal words, “I declare, some old Indian has been buried here!”
Soon they had unearthed a colossal stone figure more than 10 feet from head to toe. What Emmons and Nichols didn’t know was the stone man was the creation of Binghamton cigar maker George Hull, who was Newell’s cousin, and that Hull and Newell had planted it there nearly a year before. Hundreds of people flocked to see the marvel. Newell set up a tent over it and started charging 25c a head. Business was so brisk that he increased it to 50c two days later.
Andrew White, first president of Cornell University (and hoaxer promulgator of the myth that a significant number of people through human history believed that the Earth is flat) allegedly
…overheard “a very excellent doctor of divinity, pastor of one of the largest churches in Syracuse” declare that, “Is it not strange that any human being, after seeing this wonderfully preserved figure, can deny the evidence of his senses, and refuse to believe, what is so evidently the fact, that we have here a fossilized human being, perhaps one of the giants mentioned in Scripture?”
It seems that, if any such thing was ever actually stated, the pastor had not idea of what he spake since:
What is, “of the giants mentioned in Scripture?” We can’t know until that pastor answered: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
Well, his usage clearly seems to have been something about un-specifically generically vague about subjectively unusual height.
Yet, in the English Bible that employ that term, 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.
And, the tallest person in the Bible was an Egyptian who was 7.5ft. (2 Sam 23).
Mark Rose also wrote:
Evidence of giants in America was nothing new. The Massachusetts Puritan Cotton Mather believed that mastodon fossils found near Albany, New York, in 1705 were those of giants who had perished in Noah’s flood.
“The Giants that once groaned under the waters,” he wrote, “are now under the Earth, and their Dead Bones are lively Proofs of the Mosaic history.”
He got the under water part from Job 26:5 which the ESV, for example, has as, “The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants” so there’s nothing about giants in that text: it’s just that the root rapha/im is used there and, as we saw above, some English Bibles render Repha/im as giant(s). Thus, none of that had to do with, “Proofs of the Mosaic history.”
Moreover:
Thomas Jefferson had his own interest in fossils, and in 1804 he even set aside a room in the White House for his collection of extinct elephant, giant ground sloth, and bison bones, teeth, and tusks.
Earlier, he had convinced Yale College president Ezra Stiles that such remains were of animals rather than giants. Fascinated by an immense claw of a ground sloth, Jefferson wrote to a friend, “I cannot…help believing that this animal, as well as the mammoth, are still existing.”
This is fascinating in that at least from the time of Flavius Josephus writing that bones of Rephaim were on display, it’s been unknown if, say, a historian such as he were qualified anatomists who could distinguish between human/oid bones and the bones of pachyderm, whales, dinos, sloths, bison, etc., etc., etc.
See appendix, “Review of Adrienne Mayor’s The First Fossil Hunter” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Also, 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 since giants obsessed people seem to think that if it was printed in a newspaper then, by golly, it must be true—and infallibly so.
It’s also noted that, “Josiah Priest, writing in his American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West…cites Scripture on giants” who knows what those were, “and notes, ‘There are those who imagine that the first inhabitants of the globe, or the antediluvians, were much larger than our race at the present time.’”
One giant he mentions is Nimrod: for whom we’ve no physical description. Yet, Priest argues, “The Septuagint version of the Scriptures speaks of Nimrod as being a surly giant” since that version, the LXX, renders what’s, “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth” in the KJV, as that Nimrod began to be a γίγας.
Yet, the issue is that the LXX renders Nephilim and also Repha/im and also gibbor/im all as gigas (γίγας) or gigantes (γίγαντες) both of which are in reference to the false Greek goddess Gaia—with the latter word referring to earth-born. Thus, γίγας implies nothing about size: that was just a word-concept fallacy.
Another giant Priest mentioned was Goliath yet, 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. (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.
Perhaps that was the case yet, 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.
And, the rest of those inhabitants don’t show signs of having been taller than the modern average—and were actually shorter.
Reportedly:
In 1866, [George] Hull…an atheist, got into a heated argument with Rev. Mr. Turk, a Methodist revivalist. Hull later recalled spending the night “wondering about why people would believe those remarkable stories in the Bible about giants, when suddenly I thought of making a stone giant, and passing it off as a petrified man.”
Pray tell, what, “remarkable stories in the Bible about giants” were those?
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.
The following discussion took place in the comments section of the video VFTB 5/5/24: The Genesis 6 Conspiracy Part 2 Gilbert House which is a platforming of Gary Wayne by Derek Gilbert. I don’t say interview since such is what pop-Nephilologists do: they only appear on platforms meant for them to make whatever assertions they want in a 100% un-challenged manner.
This was also a PR marketing infomercial since, as the vid’s info section notes, “Gary Wayne joins us to discuss” Gary’s, “well-researched and detailed sequel to his best-selling book.”
It’s also noted, “the second book delves deeper into the biblical basis for understanding giants and their role in the post-Flood world. We also touch on the Jesuits, the battles of Israel against giants, and the significance of the terms Nephilim, Rephaim, and Gibborim in biblical context.”
Now, one issue is what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Gary’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Well, his usage is something uselessly generically vague about unspecified subjectively unusual height.
In those English Bibles that employ it, 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.
Thus, no, Gary’s misusage does not agree with the English Bible’s usage.
Thus, giants in the post-flood world were Rephaim—and they were merely subjectively “tall” on average (Deut 2): and note that, “tall” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as “giants.”
The mention of Jesuits is due to that Gary’s pastime is to throw as many conspiracy theories as he can get his hands on into a blender, turns it on, the peppers Bible sounding stuff into the chaotic mix—the info section also noted “the connection between Genesis 6 and secret societies.”
As for, “Nephilim, Rephaim, and Gibborim” well, it’s very simple—if, that is, you’re interested in biblical facts—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, there’s zero correlation between them, and gibborim is merely a descriptive term that refers to might/mighty.
What started the discussion was that my comment was:
Two guys who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians. After DECADES of asserting Nephilim were “giants” (by which Gary means very, very, very big—which isn’t the English Bible’s usage of that term) it just took me asking him one little question, during our debate, to get him to admitting he doesn’t know how big they were, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.)—and then, he went on to say he’ll keep asserting they were “giants.” What sense does it make to refer to the height of someone who’s height you don’t know?
Derek Gilbert, commenting as per the channel’s name Gilbert House, replied:
Dr. Michael Heiser argued convincingly that the word “Nephilim” is an Aramaic loan word (“naphilya”, meaning “giant”). So, yes, even though we don’t know how tall the Nephilim were (and claiming otherwise would be unbiblical), calling them “giants” is consistent with both the etymology of their name and how they were understood by Jews of the Second Temple Period and the early church.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
But “meaning ‘giant'” only begs the question: what does “giants” mean and actually, more to the point, what, contextually, is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
Derek Gilbert:
Why did the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint 2,200+ years ago render “Nephilim” as “gigantes”? And why is it unbiblical to use that same word when we discuss the Nephilim?
Ken Ammi
Appreciate the continued interaction, friend.
You didn’t answer the question.
I’ll back up first to, “Dr. Michael Heiser argued convincingly that the word ‘Nephilim’ is an Aramaic loan word (‘naphilya’, meaning ‘giant’)” since, again, “‘meaning ‘giant” only begs the question: what does ‘giants’ mean and actually, more to the point, what, contextually, is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ in English Bibles?”
Fortunately, Heiser answered to what he was referring, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet)” which is fair enough.
Now, the usage in the English Bible’s that employ the term “giants” is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Now, the linguistics part becomes a styled battle of the scholars since, for example, the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”
As for, “Why did the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint 2,200+ years ago render ‘Nephilim’ as ‘gigantes’? And why is it unbiblical to use that same word when we discuss the Nephilim?”: well, you and Gary aren’t using that Greek word, you’re using the modern English word “giants.”
Yet, you’re being myopic since the LXX renders “Nephilim” and also “gibborim” and also “Rephaim” all as “gigantes” which merely means “earth-born.”
As for why they’d render three very different words with very different morphologies and very different meanings all with just one word: you’d have to ask them why they did that. Yet, it was a terrible idea and haunts us to this day with mere English readers chasing the word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible and connecting dots that don’t really connect.
Thus, Gary has literally no idea if Nephilim were even merely subjectively tall compared to the average but has made a living for DECADES asserting they were “giants” which is a word he misuses: his usage isn’t the English Bible’s usage.
Derek Gilbert:
As you had already called me out for sharing “un-biblical tall tales,” I assumed you already knew the answer to your question.
While the etymology of ‘gigantes’ was assumed in ancient times to mean “born from Earth” (i.e., “children of Ge [or Gaia]”), it’s clear from Hesiod that the Gigantes were believed to be of unusually great size.
Verses like Deut. 1:28, 2:10–21, and 9:2 connect the Anakim to the Rephaim, and in turn describe them as “greater and taller” than the Israelites. How great? How tall? Who knows? I don’t, and I’ve never said otherwise. The closest I’ve come is in writing about Goliath and citing Dr. Clyde Billington in sorting out the apparent contradiction between the Masoretic Text (six cubits and a span) and the Septuagint (four cubits and a span), concluding that Goliath was probably about eight feet tall.
But even then, I don’t believe he was a genetic descendant of the Nephilim. The Hebrew phrase ‘yelide ha-rapha,’ applied to other Philistine “giants” in 2 Samuel 21, means “devotee of the Rapha,” ‘yelide’ being a word that literally means “a member of a group into which one has been initiated or consecrated.”
We have never claimed, as some have, that the Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, Amorites, or any of the other giant clans of the Levant were “like the height of the cedars.” We haven’t even claimed that those tribes were literal genetic descendants of the Nephilim. The pre-Flood giants died and their genetic lines ended. Unless and until archaeologists find remains of unusual size that can be dated to Bronze or Iron Age Israel, we’ll stick to what we can corroborate with evidence.
That’s why our focus has been on the veneration of the Rephaim, which is documented in Canaanite texts. Descriptions of similar worship are found in the Old Testament from Leviticus through Jeremiah. The cult of the dead was well-known in the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean from before the time of Abraham into the Christian era, and the Israelites were drawn into it as well.
If you’re going to accuse Sharon and me of spreading “un-biblical tall tales,” be specific and back it up. It seems to me you’re picking nits.
Ken Ammi:
Appreciate the continued and detailed interaction—FYI: YT is currently shadow banning me so I only found that you replied by coming here and checking—oi vey!
It’s a word-concept fallacy and a category error to jump from “’gigantes’ was assumed in ancient times to mean ‘born from Earth’” to that in one usage the term was, “believed to be” mind you, “of unusually great size”—with “great” and “size” being vague, generic, multi-usage, and subjective terms (as is “giants”) so that’s a non-statement.
Such is why I asked the questions you didn’t answer which were about the, “usage” of terms. You jumped from meaning to one example of usage.
And none of that works anyhow since, for example, since the very same LXX renders “gibborim” as “gigantes” then we can’t just go by thus saith Hesiod since gibborm merely means might/mighty and since might/mighty is merely conceptual then it has no size—we can’t measure might with a tape measure.
Angels, Nephilim, mere humans, and God are all referred to as gibbor/im so you can’t merely assert Angels, Nephilim, mere humans, and God are all of whatever “of unusually great size” may mean.
Of course Anakim are connected to Rephaim: they were like a clan of a tribe: but there’s no connecting them to Nephilim—which you seem to affirm.
Yes, they, on average, were “taller” then than the Israelites: so what of it? I’m taller than my wife and kids and parents and grandparents and sister, etc. Ergo indeed, “How great? How tall? Who knows?” so it’s a non-issue argument from silence.
The Masoretic text has Goliath 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. (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.
When you say “…‘rapha,’ applied to other Philistine ‘giants’” I hope you’re following the linguistics logic and realize that biblically contextually, that means, “…‘rapha,’ applied to other Philistine ‘Rephaim.’”
It’s a bit too generic to refer to, “veneration of the Rephaim” since that’s another linguistics issue:
It’s based on jumping from myopically cherry picking that the root rapha means dead/death: ignoring the wide range of meaning it has which includes healing/healer: which is why God is referred to as YHVH Rapha, there’s an apocryphal Angel named Raphael (God’s healer, healing God, etc.), etc.
Then reading ANE texts wherein when kings and heroes are recently deceased they’re referred to as kings and heroes but after they’ve been dead for some time, they’re referred as the parochial spelling of rapha/im, can be summoned for rituals, etc.
Then that gets applied to the 100% human tribe Rephaim (and so to Anakim by extension) but that’s not ontological, it’s just a linguistics trick.
Thus, “The cult of the dead” doesn’t turn human Rephaim into some sort of walking dead.
I was actually accusing Gary and you ;o)
Appreciate your affirmation in the “We have never claimed…” paragraph.
Yet, you have written, “Anak, his [Arba’s] son, had three distinguished descendants in the days of Moses and Joshua who were giants” which should read, “Rephaim” continued with, “Their names were Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai…the descendants of Anak, and other huge people…various branches of these Nephilim known as Emims and Anakims… monstrosities…We had the Emim, a race of gigantic stature…this race of giants” but you don’t know their size and, again, that should read, “Rephaim” followed with, “There are other passages not quoted which make mention of the Rephaim, which were another branch of the Nephilim…giants were known by various names such as Rephaim, from one Rapha, a notable one among them. Also Emim, Horim, Zamzummim and Avim, as well as Anakim…Nephilim…in tum produced offspring who were genetically-engineered supernatural and superhuman evil monsters.”
You did write, “various branches of these Nephilim known as Emims and Anakims…Rephaim, which were another branch of the Nephilim…”
So, if you have since then changed your mind that’s great: please say so now and show me where you posted a public notification that you no longer stand by and maybe have even edited, “Last Clash of the Titans.”
There’s no telling why someone stops replying in a discussion when they stop but I do find it interesting that when the rubber hit the road, when I quoted his own book, he no longer replied.
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.
Mike Shreve used to teach Kundalini Yoga at four universities and ran a yoga ashram until, “encounter with God dramatically changed his heart, his worldview, and his direction in life…Jesus Christ into my heart and invited Him to be Lord of my life.”
He wrote an article titled, The mysterious “Nephilim” of Genesis 6 which he begins by quoting Gen 6:1-4 thusly:[1] Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Refreshingly, he notes, “The original Hebrew word translated ‘giants’ in verse 4 is nephil… ‘giants’ is actually a debated rendering of the word” and indeed, it is a rendering, not a translation. He adds that, “Strong’s Concordance offers that it means a feller (like someone who cuts down trees) and that it can mean ‘bullies’ or ‘tyrants’…Other theologians feel the word Nephilim means ‘fallen ones.'”
Yet, Shreve argues, “the ‘Nephilim’ were not actually the ‘fallen ones.’ If the ‘angel/women’ theory is correct, the Nephilim were rather the offspring of the ‘fallen ones.’ Of course, they could have inherited a ‘fallen’ state…” One issue is that when the word Nephilim is seen to derive from the root naphal it is not strictly fallen ones but to fall, to cause to faller, feller, etc. and so has been understood to refer to Nephilim due to what Shreve noted, due to that they were part of the mix that caused the Gen 6 affair’s styled second fall, they fell upon men as mighty men (mightier than the average), etc.
He adds, “Many interpreters of this passage (Jew and Christian) feel that the ‘sons of God’ were instead the offspring of Seth…they had ‘fallen’ from the standard of repentance and righteousness that was associated with that line—the family tradition of walking with God” and yet, that view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice (see 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).
Mike Shreve also notes, “The extra-biblical books of Enoch and Jubilees are more blatant in promoting this point of view” which he points out, “for the sake of this study” since, “they cannot be trusted as reliable sources…they are not in the approved canon of Scripture.” Indeed, they are both folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (see my books The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts and In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch).
Now, Shreve notes, “Both of these works describe the Nephilim as being evil giants” but earlier we saw that he discerned that giants is a translation and rendering—again, with it actually being a rendering and not a translation—so, we will have to see what he thinks it translates: in other words, we will have to seek to discern what is the usage is of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? What is Mike Shreve’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Due to that, “the Book of Jubilees (7:21–25) also states that ridding the earth of these Nephilim was one of God’s purposes for causing the flood in Noah’s time” that raises two questions which are elucidated thusly:
If destroying the Nephilim was one of the primary reasons God sent the flood, why are the Nephilim mentioned again later in the Bible. After spying out the Land of Canaan, ten of the twelve spies brought back an “evil report” (a report of unbelief) saying in Number 13:32-33:
“There we saw the giants [Hebrew nephil] (the descendants of Anak came from the giants [Hebrew nephil] ); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” The second question—How could that wicked seed line have survived when the Bible says that everyone except Noah’s family drowned? Remember God did tell that righteous patriarch, “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.” (Genesis 6:13) The last time I checked, the word “all” means all—and I don’t think God was using hyperbole. I am eager to tackle those but will present Mike Sherve’s replies first. He notes, “it was not God who called the sons of Anak ‘Nephil’ (or the plural ‘Nephilim’); it was the ten spies—and they could have gotten it wrong—but what if they didn’t?”
Pause to noted that it is key to distinguish the 10 from the other 2 since that is one of the text’s main points and most pop-Nephilologists miss that so Sherve is quite on point.
He notes that, “Orthodox [Rabbinic] Judaism takes a stand against this view” while, ‘Other Jewish sources” accept it. The fact is that 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 aforementioned book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? I will succinctly note that he notes, “Some Christian theologians believe the fallen angels who begat the Nephilim were cast into a specific chamber of hell called Tartarus. They get that from 2 Peter 2:5-9 and Jude 1:5-7.”
Well, it is not a chamber of hell and not in Jude but yes, in to Tartarus (see my book What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell?: A Styled Superumology and Infernology). He further notes, “The original Greek word translated ‘hell’ in many Bible versions is tartaroo (from the root word tartaros), thought to be a reference to the lowest abyss of hell” yet, it is the lowest place of the abyss in Greek mythology: to which we must turn since it seems that Peter was appealing to his Greek audience since in the Bible Tartarus is a hapax legomena.
Shreve asks, “‘Who were ‘the angels who sinned’?’ Peter never said they were the ‘sons of God’ mentioned in Genesis 6. He could have been referring to those angels who sinned in Satan’s rebellion in the very beginning.” Yet, Satan’s rebellion/sin/fall took place during the Gen 3 timeline but the Angels’ was during the Gen 6 timeline. He also asks, “why are fallen angels (demons) still able to torment human beings on earth, if all of them that sinned in the beginning are bound in the Abyss?” Well, it is because the term, “fallen angels (demons)” is technically a category error since that refers to two technically different phenomena—see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
He then notes, “Jude does not say that the angels were involved in ‘sexual’ sin like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Yet, overall: Peter and Jude, 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 so if the Gen 6 affair was not it then we do not know when it was.
He then noted that, “sons of God…ben Elohiym” (it is actually bene ha Elohim in the case of Gen 6) can refer to Angles or humans and Jesus—since in any language one term can refer to more than one thing and context always determines meaning such as in 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.
Mike Shreve goes on to claim, “in Psalms 82:6-7, God rebukes the unjust judges of Israel with the following statement: ‘I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High [Hebrew ben Elyon]. But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” I am unsure why God felt the need to tell humans that they will die like humans.
My readers know that I have reviews many Nephilology articles (and peer review papers and videos and books) and this one has been quite keen on picking up on some important details that many miss—even if with a few missteps along the way—so it is unfortunate that it ended up turning into an anti-Angel view argument since it then falls apart since, in part, the original, traditional, and majority view was the original, traditional, and majority view has been just that for a reason and that is because it is the strongest view that combines the most relevant data and opposing it is where Shreve goes wrong. Yet, he uses the option that sons of God can refer to humans to go onto argue in favor of, “biological reason not to believe in angelic copulation with the ‘daughters of men.” He notes, “There is a barrier between earthly species set up by God in Genesis…‘after their kind’…There is a barrier between species…Nature itself works against the evolution of hybrid creatures…it seems preposterous to believe that this barrier did not and does not exist between angels and humans.”
Well, it turns out that what Shreve emotively subjectively considers to be preposterous is not a standard. Species is not biblical taxonomy, kinds are. We can grant that, “Nature itself works against the evolution of hybrid creatures” but this was not about nature—it was supernatural—and a barrier did exist but it was not biological, it was theological.
Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic kind—see my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Thereafter, he goes on to argue:
In Matthew 22:30, Jesus was instructing certain skeptical Sadducees about the afterlife and He said concerning those who inherit eternal life: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. (See also Mark 12:25, Luke 20:35) Why would He say that?
Because two major parts of marriage are sexual union and reproduction. And evidently, angels do not have either capacity. Neither will we, in the glorified state that awaits us in the celestial world to come. Note that his qualifying term is, “evidently” and he relies on that to merely assert, “angels do not have either capacity.”
Yet, note Jesus’ qualifying terms since He very specifically exclusively referred to 1) “angels of God” 2) “in heaven.” Thus, not all Angels in all places at all times but again, Angels are described as looking just like human, etc., and why would they only be missing the key features of the male anatomy and capability?
This is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Micke Shreve went on to argue:
Who Was God Upset with Anyway? Read Genesis 6:3 carefully: And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” Don’t you think if it were angels in this Genesis story causing such spiritual disruption, that God would have said: “My Spirit shall not always strive with angels.” Or if the women had been partly to blame by seductively attracting the angels, God would have said: “My Spirit shall not always strive with women.” If the corrupt and lustful angel/women connection is right—if that were the case, then instead, God might have said: “I am going to bless you men, but I’m getting rid of the angels and starting a new line of women (volunteers anyone—I need some new ribs).” This is a very simple issue that takes us in, at least, two directions:
1) Moreso than not, the Bible is a anthropological anthology since its main focus is humanity, in a manner of speaking, not matter to what it refers, it refers to it as per how it effects humanity, it is about our creation, fall, and redemption.
2) Humans, Nephilim, and Angels are all referred to as man/men so it is a non-issue.
Ergo, of course God emphases our corruption and culpability even in the midst of making it clear that it was a combo deal.
He then takes aim at the question:
Are the Giants (in verse 4) and the “Sons of God” (in verse 2) Unrelated? Read Genesis 6:4 carefully again: There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. It did NOT say that “the giants” (the Nephilim) were the same as the “men or renown,” nor did it say that they resulted from a union between angels and women. Some translations (like the Complete Jewish Bible) say “ancient heroes” instead of “mighty men.” What? How could anything heroic and good result from satanic invasion of this earth through fallen angels copulating with corrupt women. That doesn’t make sense at all! What does or does not make sense to Mike Shreve isn’t a standard, that is also subjective.
As for, “How could anything heroic and good result from satanic invasion” well, what, “doesn’t make sense at all!” is removing that from its context which is: consider the source. Who, pray tell, considered them, “heroic and good”? The text actually notes they were mighty and renown—it was a culture that was utterly corrupt—one culture’s good hero is another’s villain and visa versa.
He asks if the Gen 6 affair, “Could…Just Be About Polygamy?” and notes that, “the offspring of Seth were taught how to ‘call on the name of the Lord” and walk with God’ (Genesis 4:26)” which may have been the case yet, the text generically reads, “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.”
Replying on what makes subjectively, “more sense” to him, Shreve thinks, “some of the offspring of Seth denied the godly heritage they were given and began intermarrying polygamously with the daughters of Cain—mixing the two lines?”
Note that he did not get around to telling us why Sethites marrying Cainites would be a case of denying a godly heritage—nor why there were no (or not enough) attractive female Sethites, nor attractive male Cainites. Why such a specific bifurcation of only exclusively males on one side of the equation and only exclusively females on the other? Well, the Angel view explains this since, again, Angels look like human males.
Also, he notes, “Many early church fathers and later leaders like Augustine and Calvin believed this. And I do too” but he had to traverse over three and a half centuries into AD days to appeal to Augustine and then over a millennia and a half for Calvin. He missed a few here and there—my book on this subject begins with a chart—but it shows how much of a late-comer of a view the Sethite view is (besides that it is based on myth and prejudice which only creates more problems than it solves so, more than zero). For some reason, he offers, “A Final Thought About Incubus and Succubus. Apparently, demons can simulate copulation, not physically but spiritually—especially in dreams (or more correctly, horrible nightmares)…The evil spirit that impersonates a man simulating sexual union with a woman is called Incubus (pronounced in-kyuh-buhs). The evil spirit impersonating a female is called Succubus (pronounced suhk-yuh-bus).”
He notes that since, “the enemy can attempt to imitate this experience of sexual union (again, spiritually, not physically), demons do not have sperm cells or eggs and cannot sire children or be impregnated. To think so is utter absurdity.”
That which Shreve finds absurd is not a standard and this is another case of concluding that based on his very own self-styled faulty premise. Indeed, “demons do not have sperm cells or eggs” but the Gen 6 affair was not about demons but about Angels.
It was also not a case of, “simulate…impersonates…imitate” since the text is very clear: it was about physical attraction, marriage, physical copulation, and resultant offspring.
He then notes, “If these strange unions were possible in ancient days producing giant tyrants, then it should astill [sic.] be possible now, and the human race would be plagued with weird, monstrous, hybrid, part angel/part human creatures.”
Setting aside the hyperbolic statements, “giant tyrants…weird, monstrous, hybrid…creatures”: this is another failure to accurately represent the relevant data since, “these strange unions” have not taken place since pre-flood days since, again, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined tell us that those Angels were incarcerated, and there is only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
Since he committed so many missteps, he ends up stating, “Genesis 6:1-4 will probably remain a mystery until Jesus comes” and opts to end by sermonizinglly focusing on, “as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” about which I will say AMEN!!!—for what it is worth within its own context.
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.
Undergoing review is a video titles Dr. Dan Biddle Interview with Roman Juranek – EVIDENCE FOR CREATION from which I will be reviewing the Nephilim related portions—also, I referred to, “Dan Biddle and Roman Juranek” since I’m working off of the transcript and won’t be taking the time to stop with every statement to see if the one made the statement or the other.
Unfortunately, appeal is made to Tim Chaffey’s book Fallen: therein, you’ll find my name (Ken Ammi) favorably mentioned since I assisted him with some of his research but since he ends up asserting very tall and post-flood Nephilim then his Nephilology isn’t biblical. I reviewed his assertions in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
It’s noted, “I’m very, very convinced that Genesis 6:4 says that the bene Elohim, the sons of God, looked upon the daughters of men and took them to themselves and giants were born unto them.” This raises the huge questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Biddle and Juranek’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
We’re then told, “the sons of God, the Angels, had relationship with women: which happened both before and after the flood, that’s Genesis 6 for you, so it happened in the Americas.”
There’s literally zero indication that it happened, “after the flood” and that implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
As for, “it happened in the Americas” well, if it did then there must have been some pre-flood plot of land that came to be called the Americas much, much, much, much, much, much later.
It’s noted, “in Bible lands, where you’ve got the sons of Anak, you’ve got the Rephaim, the Anakim, of course Goliath is the most well-known Nephilim—who stood over 9.9 ft tall.”
The one who stated this doesn’t seem to realize that the sons of Anak are the Anakim and that these were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe and that Goliath was a member of that clan and that tribe, not a Nephil: we’re told that he was a Repha virtually every single time he’s mentioned. How could the one guy have missed that and the other nor correct him—they likely both missed that.
As for 9.9ft: that’s myopic since 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. (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.
They then go on about, “his spear, it was 600 iron shekels in weight,” etc. yet, he had a guy assisting with the equipment. Regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.
Then we’re back to that, “they existed they existed before the flood and they also existed after the flood” which is false and based on playing the post-flood Nephilology name-game: when you can’t find evidence of post-flood Nephilim, merely assert that they’re called something else post-flood and that’s as made up and fallacious as it sounds.
Yet, it’s argued that such is actually the case since, “Deuteronomy chapters 1 through 3 is very clear about this Genesis chapter 14 has a leading king of the Israelites coming against several different Nephilim giant tribe: chieftains if you will and it also happens in the Americas.”
That is a tragically misguided list of assertions. The entire book of Deut doesn’t say a single word about Nephilim—that was about Rephaim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them. Israelites didn’t even exist yet. And how that results in that it also happened in the Americas is still mysteriously merely asserted.
But the mystery is unveiled since it’s then noted, “just look in the Americas…there are 885 documented records that we have reported by 1,196 people uh of over 3,000 giant skeletons that have been found. The Smithsonian admits or found 17 of these, between 7ft. tall and 7ft. tall, 7.8ft. And of course not of all of them are of Nephilim descent, but some of them could have been from Nephilim lines.”
Thus, evidence one for Nephilim in the Americas is 7-7.8ft. tall skeletons and yet, we’ve not first been told why we should think that Nephilim were that size. In fact, 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.
Other evidence is something about that Native Americans were apparently not sophisticated enough to build the things they built since, “what they [Nephilim] were doing in the early Americas, building these earthworks and they were obsessed with Sun, Moon and star worship.”
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.
We’re told of, “the Nephilim — those enigmatic giants” which raises these questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Wally’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
For some reason, it’s noted, “When the Bible says the Sons of God took any of the women they chose, there’s no indication that their consent was considered. Today, we’d call that rape.”
Yet, the reference to that they got married doesn’t necessarily imply forcefully so it seems that, “took” is being read into since the emphasis is that they did what they did due to that the women were attractive and not, apparently, ethical, Godly, etc.—then again, perhaps it was a case of rape and forceful marriage.
After repeating the rape interpretation, it’s noted:
This little detail turns the story from a mythical dalliance into something much darker. It’s not just about heavenly beings mingling with mortals; it’s about power dynamics and the exploitation of vulnerability. The sons of God are exercising a celestial privilege, and the daughters of men are on the receiving end of a cosmic power play.
Women wail, surrounded by Nephilim babies, with one woman with a baby growing out of her pregnant belly.
Some scholars argue that this part of the narrative reflects a broader theme of power imbalance — one that echoes through many ancient myths (including putting the blame on Eve in the Garden of Eden) and even into modern discussions about consent and authority.
These divine beings, with all their supernatural power, saw something they wanted and took it, consequences be damned.
That may very well have been the case and yet, we could argue that when any upper-class human weds a lower-class human the same could be said—if, that is, we were prejudice and generic about it all.
Regarding Nephilim, we’re told about, “physical might” but not why we should think so—especially when someone can be mighty but not physically so, not be physically imposing.
We’re then told, “One popular interpretation, especially in early Jewish thought, is that the sons of God were fallen angels.” The article previously referred to, “celestial beings…sons of God” who did, “leave their heavenly abode and mingle with the mortals.”
Indeed, 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.
We’re also told, “In Enoch, these sons of God were explicitly identified as angels who not only fathered the Nephilim but also taught humans all sorts of forbidden knowledge” even though 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 taking giant leaps to what may be the usage of giants in that we’re then further told of Nephilim as, “part of a roster of monsters of the Bible.”
It then noted, “Genesis 6 reflects an ancient belief in a world teeming with divine beings who sometimes overstepped their bounds, argues Michael Heiser, in his book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.” Well, I’m unsure how two is, “teeming” (unless you count an unknown number of Angels individually—however that would work, even Rev 12’s refence to a third is a reference to a third of an unknown total) since we have the overstepping of one Cherub (Satan: Gen 3) and some Angels.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:
I also included him in my book, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
It’s then noted that the Angel/Divine Council view results in, “Nephilim as symbols of chaos, a divine error that needed correction — cue the Flood.”
We’re then shifted to a view according to which, “sons of God were actually members of a ruling class — mortal kings or warriors who, through their power and prestige, were seen as godlike.” What’s noteworthy about this less than satisfactory and historically virtually unknown option is that, “Nephilim were their offspring, not so much giants in the literal sense” but since we’ve not been told to what giants refers we can’t know to what, “giants in the literal sense” refers.
But I get the gist so I will answer the questions I posed above:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
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.
What’s Wally and Duke’s usage?
Something about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
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.
Thus, as the article notes, “Nephilim have left a lasting mark on our imaginations” and 99% of what you get—out there in the innerwebs computer machine—is that sort of pop-Nephilology.
For example:
They’ve been linked to everything from the ancient Greek titans to the giant skeletons that pop up in dubious archaeological reports. In modern times, the Nephilim have marched their way into modern fiction…these ancient giants still loom large in our collective imagination. They’ve even been co-opted by fringe theories and conspiracy buffs, who see in the Nephilim evidence of ancient alien visitations or secret histories suppressed by mainstream scholars.
Indeed, ever since the impossible post-flood Num 13:33 evil report tall-tale about seeing them by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked, pop-Nephilology has become a cottage industry, and quite a lucrative one in our day and age.
It’s tragic but modern pop-Nephilology is where the most embarrassingly ridiculous wild conspiracy theories that should die find a new home by being thrown in a blender and are mixed in till they leaven the whole lump.
The article ends asking and answering this question, “So, what are we left with? A tale of divine beings who might — or might not — have fathered a race of giants, a story that straddles the line between history and myth.”
Well, the reliable biblical story is quite simple: Nephilim were pre-flood half-human/half-Angels who were mighty and renown (by a corrupt culture) and didn’t make it past the flood—oh, and then centuries post-flood those guys made up a fantasy story about seeing them and it didn’t end up well for them.
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.
The Biblical Archaeology site posted an article titled The Nephilim and the Sons of God by John Drummond who quotes Gen 6 thusly:
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. He notes:
…the “sons of God” (Hebrew Benai-Elohim) succumbed to their passions for the “daughters of Men” and had children with them. These offspring were known as the Nephilim (literally, “the fallen ones”), and they were the “mighty ones of old” and “men of renown.” Though centuries of rabbinical and church tradition would say otherwise…
That’s odd since generically stating it that way is not the issue of contention since that’s a standard reading. The issue would be the identity of the sons of God.
It he implies that at issue is whether Nephilim were their offspring well, that’s a secondary issue and not much debated—historically speaking.
John Drummond notes
…the audience to whom the text was intended would have understood the ‘sons of God’ to be the members of the divine assembly mentioned throughout the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible (see Job 6:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 82).
Indeed, 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.
He adds, “In the texts of the cultures that surrounded Israel, like the Canaanite literature found at Ugarit, the ‘sons of God’ similarly appear as divine beings in the service to the king of the gods, El, and his queen, Asherah.”
We get a taste of this in the Bible itself since Daniel 3:25 records Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar stating that he saw someone looking, “like a son of God”: bar ‘ĕlâ—with bar being the Aramaic for ben/bene son/s and ‘ĕlâ being the Aramaic form of El/Eloa/Elohim, etc.
He went on to note:
The legacy of the Nephilim did not end with the flood, however, as the biblical texts go on to attribute them as the ancestors of some of the Israelites’ most feared enemies (Numbers 13:33). It’s odd to refer to plural, “biblical texts” and then only appeal to one yet, he can only appeal to one since there’s only one to which one can appeal—there aren’t plural post-flood texts.
Also, Nephilim can only be said to have been, “the Israelites’ most feared enemies” when we read Num chaps 13-14, not merely one single verse, and realize that they weren’t real enemies, they were made up. That verse is part of an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
V. 33 reads, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them”—yet, note that the LXX version lacks any reference to Anakim.
So, when they merely asserted they that they saw post-flood Nephilim and that they were very, very, very tall: that was just a tall-tale.
There’s literally zero reliable indication of post-flood Nephilim and that would imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, “The legacy of the Nephilim” as real-life living beings did, in fact, end with the flood. Yet, the legacy as the stuff of myth and legend didn’t since weaving tall-tales about them has been in vogue for millennia—and has become a very lucrative modern day cottage industry as pop-Nephilologists make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.
John Drummond went on to write:
Another feared group that was legendary by the time the Israelites settled the land was the Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20, 3:11; Joshua 12:4, 13:12).
That they were, “giants” only begs these questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Drummond’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Biblically contextually, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants” means, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim.”
He notes:
It’s unknown if the Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim, but it is clear that by the Intertestimental period (the fourth–first centuries B.C.E.) the Nephilim were thought to be the monstrous giant offspring of fallen angels and humans, as described in the pseudographical Book of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as others found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
If, and that’s a bit IF, “the Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim” it would have had to be by implying that God failed, etc., then accepting the evil report as true (which they did at the time—sans Josuah and Caleb), then extrapolating that if the clan of the Rephaim tribe, the Anakim, were somehow (impossibly) related to Nephilim then (somehow) by extension all Rephaim must be (somehow, impossibly) related to them.
So, it’d be asserted assumption piled atop asserted assumption, etc.—at piled high levels of abstraction.
As for, “by…fourth–first centuries B.C.E.”—wait, “B.C.E.” wow, I can’t believe Biblical Archeology would allow the usage of that anti-Christian term which was manufactured to take attention away from B.C.: before Christ and swapped it with a generic secular term Before Common Era. And the most ridiculous thing is that B.C.E. and B.C. is distinguished from C.E. which is really A.D. on the same day: Jesus’ birth (give or take a few years).
As for, “Book of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as others found among the Dead Sea Scrolls” which would be The Book of Giants (whatever that means), see my book on Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
John Drummond added:
The authors of the Greek Septuagint even chose to use the word gigantes in their translation of Genesis 6, a word that also invokes the monstrous Titans—the legendary giants that were destroyed by the gods in Greek myth. And like the Titans of old, the legend of the Nephilim only continues to grow in modern times. That’s a bit of a stretch: gigantes means earth-born.
That it was, “in their translation of Genesis 6” is myopic since they did likewise at any appearance of the term gibborim and Repha/im as well: and rendering three very different words with just one word was a terrible idea.
Thus, it’s doubly myopic to asset, “a word that also invokes the monstrous Titans—the legendary giants” since:
1) gibborim is merely the male plural for might/mighty and the gibborim in the Bible include Angels, Nephilim, some of David’s soldiers, Gideon, Boaz, etc., to include God Himself (Isaiah 9: El Gibbor).
Thus, it’s not exclusively “monstrous Titans—the legendary giants” since, for example, Boaz was mighty, in terms of wealth and authority, but not monstrous nor a giant.
2) even if the translators/renderers of the LXX (from centuries after the Hebrew Torah) meant to correlate Nephilim with Titans we still wouldn’t know how so: perhaps it was that they imagined that both were very tall but perhaps it was because both were hybrids, or that both were tyrannical, or some combination thereof—and note that there were more than one generation of Titans which differed radically such as some having a hundred arms, the lower bodies of serpents, etc.
That’s about it for the aspects of the article that touch upon my study of Nephilology.
Now, just in case, I will answer the three questions I posted:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
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.
What’s his usage?
Apparently, something about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
Now, let’s dig into some of the comments posted to the article.
A certain DC noted something that seems to go back to the, “is not the issue of contention” but a secondary one that I noted upfront, “Gen 6:1-8 and how the scripture says GIANTS existed before and after the Sons of God. That these sons were named MIGHTY MEN not giants.”
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.
DC also asked, “Question is where here does it say the Lord destroyed the giants or mighty men?” it says that when it says that only Noah, his wife, their sons, and their sons wives were spared—it’s implied therein and in the four other times we’re told who survived: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.
Now, we get a (bad) taste of why using the usus loquendi, flaccid designator, giants is useless since strictly English readers end up merely imagining to what it refers and then chase a modern English word around an ancient Hebrew Bible.
Example, DC wrote:
My friend said we have to believe that God sent them for a purpose to kill the giants. It doesn’t say what happened to either.
I said so is Goliath an offspring of giants after the flood? He said no! He’s a baby giant a deformity. I said did someone carry the gene in Noah’s ark he said no.
If anything, it was part of or one of the purposes for the flood and again, it says that was one of them by implication that Nephilim were part of the corrupt whole.
By, “is Goliath an offspring of giants after the flood?” DC seems to be asking, “is Goliath an offspring of Nephilim after the flood?”—again, everybody stop using that English word and just say what you mean—well, no, that’s impossible, we’re told he was a Repha, not a Nephil, virtually every time he’s mentioned and Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
As for, “a baby giant a deformity” why even invent such tall-tale when, after all, 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. (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.
As for, “someone carry the gene in Noah’s ark” well, that would imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
DC then wrote, “It says when Caleb went into the land the Giants still existed that they WERE LOCUSTS next to the giants not the height of Goliath 2-4times.”
This is generic since it wasn’t, “Caleb went into the land” but 12 spies did, Joshua sided with Caleb, and the other 10 were rebuked—to death—by God.
Again, “the Giants still existed” means the Nephilim and DC doesn’t seem familiar with the text to recognize the facts it conveys. DC seems to get, “LOCUSTS” from the LXX version and well, there’s the issue of Goliath’s height—and however DC got specific enough to get, “2-4times” from a generic statement about grasshoppers/locusts.
DC then notes, “I dunno what happened to the giants during the flood if only man and animals were killed” but the latter statement is utterly fallacious and, “Doesn’t say the mighty men or giants so did they die or survive” no, and that would contradicted the Bible five times.
DC then notes, “also CRAZY that THE MIGHTY MEN OF DAVID were called that. Still gotta look into the Hebrew word for mighty men” well, do so and DC will find out how generic it is such that so what if, “THE MIGHTY MEN OF DAVID were called that”—again, so is God.
Then, a certain Dan Rees commented:
…the Bible…follows immediately after the successive listing of the line of Cain and the line of Seth…the godly descendants of Seth forgot their principles in marrying for looks rather than character. This traditional interpretation has the advantage of fitting the context.”
Well, it’s not in the least bit the traditional interpretation: it’s a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice, and which only creates more problems than it solves so, more than zero.
Note the generic nature of this particular rendition of that view: the allegedly supposed whole entire godly descendants of Seth weren’t godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
But what did they forget? Apparently, there weren’t any or not enough attractive Sethies women so Sethie males were, “marrying for looks rather than character” but we’re not told what was the merely supposedly bad character of all women from the line of Cain.
Then, a certain DANA noted:
…the sons of god it speaks of are actually the watcher angels and if you really did your research you would have found the explanation of this lies in The Book of Enoch, Book of Watchers, where it picks up right where Genesis 6:4 stops…If you still have doubts read the book of Jude, it confirms these things and also quotes from enochs book.
Compare these, “Jude, it confirms these things and also quotes from enochs book” and Paul confirms some things and also quoted from Greek poets. It’s not that impressive now, is it?
I skipped some not very relevant comments and then we come to bob who replied to one such comment by quoting it and then commented on it:
“The Flood came because of the sin of humans”. While I agree that humanity was irredeemably sinful, what you’ve said cannot be why the Lord ultimately judged the world…
I quoted that because some who deny the Angel view do ague in terms of that, “The Flood came because of the sin of humans” but that’s myopic since the causes were the doings of Angels, Nephilim, and humans.
Likewise myopic is when George Hawke wrote:
In order to understand what words like “sons of god” meant to the Israelites, we should look at how Moses used them elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Moses describes the Israelites as “sons (or children) of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1 & 32:3-6).
Well, we know by now that he’s just ignoring all usages of that term.
Brianroy made a very typical argument from the perspective of what I term Gigorexia Nervosa which I define as an obsession with seeing giants and making them up where they’re nowhere to be seen:
Og of Bashan’s bed was that being 9 twenty-one inch cubits long and 4 twenty-one inch cubits wide. In other words 189″ long = 17′ 4″ and 84″ wide = 7’. If we make an allowance of at least one foot at the head and at the feet, Og was about 15 feet tall, the tallest human that we know of to have ever walked the Earth.
However, Scripture calls Og the remnant of the giants; and this means that others at least equal to, and almost undoubtedly many even taller than he, preceded him.
So when we read Genesis 6, we are to understand that by GIANTS, we are talking generally about statures of 15 feet or more in height, who when they walked, shook the earth beneath their feet.
When looked at, Moses himself can be showed to have been attributed a height of 8’11”…
We’ve no physical description of Og which is why desperate appeals are made to his, “bed.” Yet, merely assuming we can know anything about his personal height based on his bed is actually based on various mere assumptions and we’ve come to find that the bed wasn’t something on which he slept but was a ritual object-see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
As for, “Scripture calls Og the remnant of the giants” that means, “remnant of the Rephaim.”
Thus, it’s utterly incoherent to conclude, “Genesis 6…15 feet or more in height” much less, “shook the earth beneath their feet” and of course, there’s literally zero indication of, “Moses…8’11”” but such is how un-biblical tall-tales go.
Jon K. J. Bartz asserted:
If you read the text in Scripture, reference is made to the sons of God being there (earth) before and after the flood. Interesting that some of our current earth population having Neanderthal genes and Dr. Oz made reference to “Our reptilian ancestors”. So much to learn and so little time to do it!
Alrighty then! As for, “sons of God being there (earth) before and after the flood” well, there’s no such statement in the entire Bible but that is one of the most popular pop-Nephilology tall-tales.
1) Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us that those sons of God/Angels were incarcerated. Now, they don’t tell us when but since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, then it would have been during the flood or before it.
2) post-flood sons of God doing it all over again is just a form of implying that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
3) what such people do it to read, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them” and merely imagine that a text that doesn’t say anything about the flood says something about the flood—in fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verse later.
If you re-read it, you’ll see that it tells you to what days it refers: “those days” were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed (with the commencing timeline being given in v. 1) and so “afterward” meant just that, after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood.
As for, “current earth population having Neanderthal genes”: I’ve no idea what that has to do with anything, much less, “Our reptilian ancestors.”
Lloyd Stewart provided a breath of fresh (accurate) air with:
It’s true that the Nephilim are mentioned at Numbers 13:33, but the speakers quoted there in Numbers were the faithless Israelite spies, telling tall tales designed scare the Israelites away from entering the Promised land.
Now, Lloyd went on to write, “men of extraordinary size, called the sons of Anak (probably meaning ‘Long-Necked [that is, of tall stature]’), were only unusually tall men, for the Nephilim, the offspring of angels and women (Ge 6:4), perished in the Flood” (brackets in original).
Extraordinary is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants. Deut 2 notes that Anakim were, “tall” and tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as extraordinary and giants.
Thus, they were, “unusually tall” compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Indeed, “Nephilim…perished in the Flood” never to return.
Dr Martin Allen Cragg commented as myopically as we saw above so I will quote it thusly, “according to” only some, “scripture Sons of God is a description applied to mortal believers” if we ignore the other scriptures which have a different usage.
Just as with another comment we saw, this one is generic enough to assert, “This passage records the consequences of believers marrying those who are outside that covenant relationship with God” without bothering to telling us anything useful.
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.
Brother. I’ve studied the Apocripha. Besides the bible. If you read the apocripha, you will understand these things. And it’s all an marvellous plan of God. Blessed be the name of the Lord!
Randle Hodge Jr chimed in by replying thusly to Vinogradof
uhhhh bull[****] with another name is still bull[****].
True Freethinker
Please mind your manners. You merely posted a merely asserted positive affirmation so you’re being very illogical. Now, what, on your worldview, is wrong with believing in BS?
Since no reply was forthcoming for some time, I followed up with
Well, you instantly collapsed.
Randle Hodge Jr
because the buybull and other such bs texts lie and deceive on a global scale. Hypocrisy at its apex. Christianity primarily but ALL religion is the greatest source of evil and control, the most destructive force in mankind’s history. Period.
True Freethinker
You didn’t seem to reply on your worldview but on your emotively subjective personal preferences du jour.
You only beg the question what, on your worldview, is wrong with deceiving on a global scale and hypocrisy and evil and control and being destructive?
As for, “the greatest source of evil and control, the most destructive force in mankind’s history” please make yourself privy of history as recent as the last century when Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even then competing, as it were, with “religions” that had been around for MILLENNIA. Oh, and on Atheism, there’s literally nothing wrong with that and it was actually a good thing since it freed us of the less fit and freed up resources for the fittest.
Randle Hodge Jr
what a crock of [****]. Talk about shoe horning facts lol. Atheists “ set a record”? lol when nearly every violent act not gang or drug related has SOME religious tie in? Couple of reminders chief. The holocaust. The crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. 9-11. Current war in Gaza. Let’s even pretend the buybull is accurate for a moment and just mention the great flood, sodom and gamorah , and ETERNAL damnation promised? Not to mention the rapture and tribulation?and yes I realize those don’t all have “ Christian “ ideology behind them, just a brief example of how religion sucks.
You may as well have done as study that determines blondes kill more people.
Firstly you have ZERO proof of that. Secondly there’s more to “ the most destructive force” than just murder. Ask an alter boy. ask someone ripped off by a televangelist. Ask someone mentally and emotionally tormented by guilt for being who they are instead who the church wants them to be.
your gawd is a child rapist. A narcissist. A hypocrite. The creator of his own enemy and then is uncaring or impotent to do anything about him. Luckily he’s a fictional man made construct.
an invisible sky daddy and his zombie clone/son… crutch of the primitive mind.
Enjoy. Meanwhile the church numbers crumble.
Thank gawd.
True Freethinker
Please mind your manners.
I’m using a PC what about you? When you click to reply to me on your notifications does it actually take you to my comment? Because when I click to reply to you, I have to literally search the entire comments section and it doesn’t help that you keep posting un-contextual replies rather than continuing a thread.
So, when you merely assert, “What a crock of” stuff, I’ve no idea what you’re subjectively emoting about.
“nearly every violent act not gang or drug related has SOME religious tie in?” how should I know?
“The holocaust”: what about it?
“The crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. 9-11. Current war in Gaza” yeah, and?
You seem to think that a legit reply is to commit a tu quoque logical fallacy and thereby moving the goalpost so that’s two fallacies in one: is there anything wrong with committing logical fallacies, on your worldview?
“ZERO proof of that” what? The historically verifiable facts that I noted? Well, check out my book, “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist”: https://www.amazon.com/Zeitgeist…/dp/1548475645
Or, just literally anything written by anyone about that time span.
Now, I’m sure that I asked what, on your worldview, is wrong with what you’re merely emotively subjectively complaining about so, again (since you merely keep jumping to merely asserted mere conclusions at the start rather than engaging in systematic critical thinking) what, on your worldview, is wrong with the things that you subjectively have a person preference du jour against based on hidden assumptions which you merely imply?
Without that, you can keep listing things you personally dislike but it will be more of what it already is: on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you don’t like in terms of a “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry.
Atheist Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine in his article, “Arguing for Atheism”:
“I am not convinced by Dawkins’s argument that without religion there would be ‘no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’….’ In my opinion, many of these events-and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists-were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.”
Randle Hodge Jr
ok man.. you’re boring me with word salad that means nothing. Your responses come weeks after the last comment , and like you pointed out, difficult to find previous comments to refresh memory.
Bottom line, religion, Christianity in particular , is historically evil and I stand firmly against it. And no I’m not checking out your book.
Have a nice one. Moving on.
He followed up before I could reply
rereading some post coffee… ummm I’ve never heard anyone say “ there would be no….” Suicide bombers etc, nor claimed they are the cause of ALL. There are no absolutes. But the argument that “ if there were no religions things would or wouldn’t be ‘x’” is a pure hypothetical with zero way to prove or disprove until there IS no religion. So your argument, like nearly all pro religion arguments , is based on a foundation of sand. And this one guys quote is as valid as any but proves nothing.
As an atheist the onus is not on me/us to disprove religion. I don’t believe in your giants either. I don’t have to disprove those. I don’t believe in purple unicorns or the tooth fairy. Not my obligation to disprove those.
Faith is belief without proof.
Fact is belief because of proof.
Period.
You believe I. The same gawd as dozens of other religions do. Same invisible dude.. same sky daddy. Yet even amongst yourselves you can’t agree which “ version” of the same damned religion is the right one. lol
Kinda makes you think it’s all man made or at best a gawd with really [****]ty communication skills, who hadn’t checked in with anyone in a veeeeery long time. lol
Meanwhile that gawd, in his “ own book” is a rapist, a murderer, pro incest, pro genocide, pro filicide. Unworthy of praise but only scorn. Impotent, a narcissist , a hypocrite. While the PROOF evolution and the structures of the universe mounts greater daily.
True Freethinker
Please mind your manners.
“word salad”: Atheist-speak for “I’m literally incapable of dealing with the issue I raised but am such a religiously zealous missionary for Atheism that I will still mash something into my keyboard!!!”
You are 100% avoiding the issue by relying on your Atheism 101 MO of piling assertions atop assertions until you’ve built a bottomless pit of assertions for yourself.
So, let’s simplify: on your worldview there’s no such thing as objective, “evil” so you disqualified yourself from complaining about it. Such is why you opted for appealing to subjectivism, “I stand firmly against it” on the level of telling me that you stand firmly against an ice-cream flavor you emotively subjectively don’t like in a “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry.
In fact, on Atheism so called “evil” is actually so called “good” since it rids us of the less fit.
Actually, “As an atheist” there is no onus on anyone to do anything: such is why you’ve failed to elucidate THE key issue from the start.
I’ve no idea what you’re moving the goalpost ranting about “don’t believe in your giants either.”
As for, “Faith is belief without proof” I see that you’re merely parroting ignorant Atheist when you define faith, which biblically is coming to a conclusion based on prior knowledge.
Your, “The same gawd” rant is utterly incoherent: just because there are more than one view about something doesn’t mean that one of them isn’t accurate.
Keep in mind that your emotively subjective personal preference may be that based on hidden assumptions, you personally decided to note like a supposed rapist, an alleged murderer, a supposedly pro incest, pro genocide, pro filicide, etc., etc., etc. but that only tells me your feelings (which on your worldview are just by products of an accidental chemical soup) but doesn’t tell me anything about that those things are actually wrong.
It’s as if you’ve never thought about these issues, even when they’re explained to you.
Randle Hodge Jr
I think you’re still not phrasing the question any differently? Lol
If the fault is mine, or if I’m just having an ignorant moment I apologize. Answered the question to best of ability based on how it vibes across
True Freethinker
Please don’t post new relies outside of the thread, it makes the context hard to follow. You appear to have condemned believing in BS but only as an implication based on a hidden assumption sine you neglected THE most important part so I was just asking you to elucidate that part. Rather than beginning with conclusions, begin at the actual beginning and tell us how and why, on your worldview, it’s wrong to believe in BS.
Randle Hodge Jr
your commentary makes zero sense. You speak in absolute gibberish.
But I’ll tell you one thing … I’ll speak where I want when I want about what I want. You don’t like it? Take steps . I’m not accommodating you lol. Specially when the… See more
Randle Hodge Jr
I collapsed what does that even mean? I thought your lame question was rhetorical.. “ what’s wrong with believing in BS”? Lol
True Freethinker
Randle Hodge Jr I see you misrepresented my question–and to me, the asker, no less. It wasn’t “what’s wrong with believing in BS” but what, on your worldview, is wrong with believing in BS?
And that, as they say, was that since no more replies were forthcoming.
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.
A certain Rolando William posted the following on Facebook: ◄ Genesis 6:4 ► The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (How did the Angels do this ) The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men. The Nephilim (Giants) are the offspring of the Anunnaki (fallen Angels) It’s the reason Noah’s flood had to happen, as you can see next few verses. Genesis 6:9-9:17 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Sophie Daniells Smith asked: How on earth do you think a 20/30ft male fits inside a 5ft woman. He’d kill her so that is not plausible. Artificial insemination yes magic yes physicality no David-Lauren Petre Sophie Daniells Smith um I understand what your saying but everything was much bigger back then. Adam and even was 9 – 10 ft tall if not taller. Everything before the flood was bigger Obianuju Onwunaso simply commentdd: like seriously Dirkie Müller asked David-Lauren Petre:
source please.. Rolando William to Obianuju Onwunaso: Something happened at the global flood to shorten men’s lifespans. Compare the lifespans before the flood (Genesis 5:1–32) with those after the flood (Genesis 11:10–32). Immediately after the flood, the ages decreased dramatically and then kept decreasing. A key may be in Genesis 6:3: “The Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’” Many people see the reference to “a hundred and twenty years” as the new, divinely appointed limit on man’s age. By the time of Moses (who lived 120 years), lifespans were much lower. After Moses, only one person is recorded as having lived past 120 (2 Chronicles 24:15).
One theory for why the people of Genesis lived such long lives is based on the idea that a canopy of water used to surround the earth. According to the canopy theory, the water “above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7, KJV) created a greenhouse effect and blocked much of the radiation that now hits the earth, resulting in ideal living conditions. At the time of the flood, the water canopy was poured out on the earth (Genesis 7:11), ending the ideal environment. The canopy theory has been abandoned by most creationists today.
Another consideration is that, in the first few generations after creation, the human genetic code had developed few defects. Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were surely highly resistant to disease and illness. Their descendants would have inherited these advantages, albeit to lesser degrees. Over time, as a result of sin, the human genetic code became increasingly corrupted, and human beings became more and more susceptible to death and disease. This would also have resulted in drastically reduced lifespans. Rolando William to Dirkie Müller: Something happened at the global flood to shorten men’s lifespans. Compare the lifespans before the flood (Genesis 5:1–32) with those after the flood (Genesis 11:10–32). Immediately after the flood, the ages decreased dramatically and then kept decreasing. A key may be in Genesis 6:3: “The Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’” Many people see the reference to “a hundred and twenty years” as the new, divinely appointed limit on man’s age. By the time of Moses (who lived 120 years), lifespans were much lower. After Moses, only one person is recorded as having lived past 120 (2 Chronicles 24:15).
One theory for why the people of Genesis lived such long lives is based on the idea that a canopy of water used to surround the earth. According to the canopy theory, the water “above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7, KJV) created a greenhouse effect and blocked much of the radiation that now hits the earth, resulting in ideal living conditions. At the time of the flood, the water canopy was poured out on the earth (Genesis 7:11), ending the ideal environment. The canopy theory has been abandoned by most creationists today.
Another consideration is that, in the first few generations after creation, the human genetic code had developed few defects. Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were surely highly resistant to disease and illness. Their descendants would have inherited these advantages, albeit to lesser degrees. Over time, as a result of sin, the human genetic code became increasingly corrupted, and human beings became more and more susceptible to death and disease. This would also have resulted in drastically reduced lifespans. May be an image of text Kelli Cannon Lanford to David-Lauren Petre:
because the oxygen saturation in the air was different because it was before the flood. After the flood it was cut down so all things do not grow as big now. Sophie Daniells Smith to Kelli Cannon Lanford:
is this when they capped the height and age of humans. After the flood, 120 years and so many feet Kelli Cannon Lanford to Sophie Daniells Smith:
i would say yes. The flood changed the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Lack of oxygen means lack of growth. Russell Hayden wasted our time by replying thusly to David-Lauren Petre
like your ego and mouth Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith: According to Genesis 6:4 in the Bible, giants, or Nephilim, were created when the “sons of God” had sex with human women: Genesis 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them”. Some Bible teachers believe that angels took the form of humans to have children with women, resulting in the creation of giants. The word “Nephilim” in Hebrew can be translated as “fallen ones”. The offspring of angels and humans, called Nephilim, were said to have a mixture of human and angelic power. Dirkie Müller to Rolando William:
all authority on earth was given to Adam ( Gen. 1:28) meaning that a spirit need human’s authority on earth Sophie Daniells Smith to Rolando William:
there’s no way a giant has sex with a 5ft woman without damaging her intestines and what not impossible physically. There’s no way a 30 inch is going in a 5ft woman impossible like I said so more lies in the bible Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith:
here’s your answer to that The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men. Madilyn Moore to Sophie Daniells Smith:
why are you even in this group? Also you’re ignorant. No one said giants slept with women. The angels came down in HUMAN form and procreated with the women, which made the giants. The angels weren’t the giants. The offspring were. & if this is all lies, why tf are you even here? Sophie Daniells Smith to Madilyn Moore:
why are you so rude. I, True Freethinker, chimed in with this to Rolando William:
There’s no indication “angels took the form of humans” rather, 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, “resulting in the creation of giants” what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree? True Freethinker to Sophie Daniells Smith:
Yes, it’s a lie in the Bible: Num 13:33 is where someone would get the idea that Nephilim were very, very, very big but that’s identified in the Bible as an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. The problem is that pop-Nephilologists, who make a living selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians, actually believe that lie and sell it. 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. FYI: I’ve written some dozen research based Nephilology books: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks True Freethinker to Rolando William:
You’re consulting texts in which Angels look just like human males and you then artificially insert that they took on that form but there’s zero indication of that in the whole Bible. The logical conclusion is that such is just how they look ontologically. Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith: The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men. Sophie Daniells Smith to Rolando William:
angels are not nephilim Rolando William to Sophie Daniells Smith:
nope they are the offspring of them Candace S Allen to Sophie Daniells Smith:
i agree but the stories go that nephalim were created by fallen angels and humans Sophie Daniells Smith to Candace S Allen:
could an angel impregnate a woman with magic. Bit like how Mary got pregnant. True Freethinker to Sophie Daniells Smith:
The key text, Gen 6, notes physical attraction, marriage, coming into, and offspring so it was good ol’ fashioned mating. True Freethinker to Sophie Daniells Smith:
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.
Connie Monett noted:
Yes, and the story goes that he chose Noah because he was untainted. The word taint is usually associated with blood. So I take that to mean that Noah was not related to any of that Dirkie Müller to Connie Monett:
The Bible says that God look at the intension of the heart, NOT THE BLOOD it pumps Jeff Fellure to Dirkie Müller:
read it again… It’s not the intention of the heart… Everybody has good intentions the road to hell is paved with good intentions  Dirkie Müller to Jeff Fellure:
maybe you should read and think what you read. There is no road to hell, we ALL (except Christ) were born in sin and sin is eternal death Jeff Fellure to Dirkie Müller:
that’s why Jesus came to help us escape sin, but if you don’t accept Christ, then surely the only place for you to go as hell and everybody will say what I meant to this and I meant to do that and I was trying to do good and I intended to… [the rest of the comment was hidden with a “Read more” button but this particular comment seems to have been deleted since I first copied the comments section]
Dirkie Müller to Jeff Fellure:
you tell me to be quiet, FOOL? YOU should rather pay attention to Heb. 8:10 and John 6:45 and stop trying George Buol to Connie Monett: Matthew 24:37-39: “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be”. This verse describes how people in the days before the flood were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark. Luke 17:26-30: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man”. This verse includes a similar description of people in the days before the flood. 2 Peter 2:5: “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and” Olivia Garth to Luis Arturo Del Pozo (FYI: I have been skipping not very relevant comments):
the book of Enoch isn’t science it’s biblical history as Enoch was Noah’s great great grandfather True Freethinker to Olivia Garth:
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah Luis Arturo Del Pozo: Thank you! However I have a question… ¿why are we infering the Nephilim are the Giants? Why? Lets use our mind! The scriptures say “the nephilim were before and after” the sons of God had offspring with the daughters of men… If they were before that then they cant be the result of such hibridation, do you get it? The scenario refers more to the eventual existance of Nephilim and Giants as 2 different races. So the question remains, what were the nephilim? This versicule states that before the arrival of the fallen angels the nephilim and the race of men were living on Earth. Correct me if Im wrong. Rolando William to Luis Arturo Del Pozo: Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Luis Arturo Del Pozo to Rolando William:
thank you, are NEPHILIM mentioned there? Or giants? Luis Arturo Del Pozo to Rolando William:
already chequed, it says NEPHILIM. Oky, however it stills does not work when we try to infere the NEPHILIM were before the hibridation, because the scriptures says explicitelly they were before that happens. Something is missing in our sources. Rolando William to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
they are giants also after the flood True Freethinker to Rolando William:
Why didn’t you tell us that you’re appealing to an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked? True Freethinker to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
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. True Freethinker to Rolando William:
But you’re uncritically chasing the English word around a Hebrew Bible. Rolando William to Luis Arturo Del Pozo: The Nephilim are mentioned in three passages of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim are described as being on Earth in the past and after that, when the “sons of God” had children with the “daughters of men”. The King James Version translates the term “Nephilim” as “giants”. Numbers 13:32–33 The Israelites are told about the Nephilim by ten of the Twelve Spies. The spies describe the Nephilim as the ancestors of the Anakites, a Rephaite tribe. Ezekiel 32:27 Some scholars believe that the “fallen mighty men” in this passage may be an indirect reference to the Nephilim. The Nephilim are often considered to be giants, but Genesis 6:4 doesn’t explicitly call them that. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word Nephilim as gigantes, which means “giants”. Some think the word Nephilim may come from the Aramaic word naphiyla, which also means “giant”. True Freethinker to Rolando William:
Genesis 6:4 is the reliable record. Numbers 13:32–33 is an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. You misrepresented that since it’s NOT, “The Israelites are told about the Nephilim by ten of the Twelve Spies”: it was 10 of them since Joshua and Caleb remained faithful and were not rebuked by God. The unreliable ones, “describe the Nephilim as the ancestors of the Anakites, a Rephaite tribe” (they actually make the exact opposite claim) only in non-LXX versions. Ezekiel 32:27 it’s just using the root naphal. As for, “The Nephilim are often considered to be giants” what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree? “gigantes” means “earth-born” not “giants”—and if “giants” well, that’s begs the questions I just asked. “naphiyla” means fallen/fall, etc.—and, again, if “giant” then we’re back to the questions. David Mudge to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
the nephelim were the children born from the sons of God, That grew into the known giants like eg: Goliath. Luis Arturo Del Pozo to David Mudge:
the scriptures says they existed on earth before the hibridation. Read again the versicule. Your interpretation, a very common one, seems to be wrong. True Freethinker to David Mudge:
Goliath, the Repha, has utterly nothing to do with Nephilim. True Freethinker to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
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. True Freethinker to Luis Arturo Del Pozo:
Three issues: 1) You jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the modern generically subjective English one “Giants.” 2) What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree? 3) When you wrote, ” The scriptures say “the nephilim were before and after”” you cut that verse in half at the critical point since it actually states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.” Nick Philo: Unfortunately the Protestant denominations have really muddies the understanding of what a Nephilim is simply because they interpret scriptures as a literal historical document in all of its content, which was NEVER how scripture was meant to be read. Without historical context they read the Nephilim as being the product of sexual intercourse between humans and fallen angels. Frankly that idea is completely ridiculous and shows a massive lack of understanding and wisdom. Rolando William to Nick Philo: Sophie Daniells Smith here’s your answer to that The Bible verse that describes angels taking the form of men is Genesis 18:2. In this verse, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is the Lord, while the other two are angels. The men eat and speak with Abraham, demonstrating that angels can take the form of men. Nick Philo to Rolando William Rolando William:
yes you are correct that angels and demons can manifest into human physical form however that form is only superficial. They don’t have reproductive capabilities, however there’s another answer that makes way more sense. Now the reason why this answer isn’t found in the scriptures is because the author(s) of text presuppose that you already have knowledge about these rituals that were used to create Nephilim. Nephilim weren’t considered to have just two parents but 3. Those rituals involved a priest-king and a temple prostitute in most cases and whatever god that was being worshipped within that group of people. The priest-king would make sacrifices and call upon his god (always a demon that was pretending to be a god) and willingly give his body to it. The possessed priest-king would then engage in a sexual ritual with the prostitute and the hope would be that his seed impregnated her. If it was successful, the child would be considered a demigod. This is how god-kings were created. Think of Xerxes from the movie 300. The wording in the Book of Genesis while it does say giant, it doesn’t give us a clear definition of what that looks like in practical terms except that the Nephilim or giants were the strong men or men of renown from the days of old from before the flood. Those rituals most certainly survived because we see a very famous Nephilim within the scriptures who is none other than Goliath. While the Protestant version of that story paints Goliath to be around 9’9″, which would be gigantic. Even though in modern times we see people in rarity growing to extreme heights, the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew and was the text that Christ and the apostles used puts Goliath at around 6’6″ which is a somewhat more common size by modern standards, he still would’ve towered over the average person who were much shorter on average. Jonathan Fitzgerald to Nick Philo:
6’6′ is by no means a giant! Excuse me! The Israelites looked like grasshoppers before the inhabitants of the promised land. Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
in this description you are saying demons helped the fallen Angels reproduce with humans. Demons are the souls of the nephelim that died in the flood. So you’re saying the offspring of those unions were necessary to create the unions. Hmmm…. Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
I think you should reread what I’m saying because what you think I said is not at all what I was expressing. The fallen angels ARE the demons. What I’m saying is that the fallen angels (demons) used humanity to create Nephilim which are essentially demonized human beings Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
I think our misunderstanding is that you think the 200 fallen angels were demons and I think they were not. I think they were angels who created evil offspring that corrupted the earth to the point that God killed them with The Flood. I think demons are the disembodied spirits of those evil offspring.i go by the Hebrew word “naphal” which means fallen and “im” on the end of a word means many. So the fallen many. Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
so the Bible is pretty clear as to what fallen angels are. I think you’re probably the first person in my 41 years of life that I’ve ran into that argues that they’re not demons. The understanding of the Church which is pretty consistent throughout ALL of Christendom (yes we actually all agree on certain things) is that when an angel falls, that means they have rebelled against the Most High God, which in turn makes them a demon. The scriptures really don’t give a middle ground. If one says that fallen angels aren’t demons then that begs the question of where demons actually come from, which further implies that demons were created to be demons. That in and of itself goes against the idea that God when His creation was finished it was good as clearly stated in the early Book of Genesis. Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
Ive read the Bible several times and never read that the fallen angels became demons. I’m starting another read through right now with a new Bible version and new list of questions. I’ll put this on my list for this read through. Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
you should check out the Orthodox Study Bible. True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
It’s not that “angels…can manifest into human physical form” but rather that 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, “demons can manifest into human physical form” I’m unaware of that: can you provide citations, please? You asserted Angels, “don’t have reproductive capabilities” well, demons don’t since they’re spirits but since Angels look just like human males, why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy? The only indication of “rituals that were used to create Nephilim” is folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: the biblical recipe for creating Nephilim is mating between sons of God and daughters of men. “Nephilim weren’t considered to have just two parents but 3” by whom and when? Surely, thousand of post-flood possessed people have mated but it’s never resulted in Nephilim—not matter what any “movie” says. You mean, “The wording in” only some modern English Bibles, “the Book of Genesis while it does say giant” and, indeed, it doesn’t physically described them. You asserted, “Nephilim within the scriptures who is none other than Goliath” but you implied that God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. Also, Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil: we’re told that about him virtually every time he’s mentioned—how did you miss that? 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. (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. True Freethinker to Jonathan Fitzgerald:
You’re appealing to a standard for what is a “giant” but there’s no such thing and you’re relying on one sentence from an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree? 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. True Freethinker to Cindy Inabnit
Cindy is relying on folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: Jubilees and 1 Enoch. Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
the Bible says the angels came to earth and “went into” the women, making wives of as many as they pleased. It says the angels defiled themselves with the women. The women bore giants as a consequence of these unions, who became men of renown . You may think it’s ridiculous, but the Bible says it happened. Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
I’d like you to think about what you just wrote for a minute. Angels came to earth and went into women… So if a baby was conceived from a Nephilim ritual and the growing embryo now was possessed by said demon, wouldn’t that mean the demon was physically inside the woman since it was possessing the unborn child? What about Angels defying themselves with women. Wouldn’t it make sense that a fallen angel that possessed a priest-king and had sexual intercourse during the possession, wouldn’t that be an act of defilement for that angel? I’m inclined to say yes. The women bearing children which were possessed and considered to be demi-gods or in biblical language giants (Nephilim), don’t you think that falls in line with the scriptures? The Church for the last 2,000 years would say yes. Do I think it’s ridiculous, no. What I think is ridiculous is the literal interpretation of scriptures that I see within protestantism. Those scriptures were originally written in a very different context than what modern readers typically understand which is why these ancient understandings seem so foreign to you. It’s because you’re trying to understand ancient writings through a modern lens. That just doesn’t work well. You’re not even taking into account how difficult it is to get a solid translation from ancient Hebrew to the English language. That too makes modern translations really just goofy and inaccurate Cindy Inabnit to Nick Philo:
I read the Bible as literal. All through the Bible when husbands had intercourse with their wives it is described as “knew his wife” or “went into”. You be as complicated as pleases you. I will stick with my literal version. Nick Philo to Cindy Inabnit:
I’m sorry that is how you choose to understand and interpret it. It’s wasn’t ever meant to be interpreted that way. That’s how you end up with doctrine that contradicts itself however do as you wish. Interpreting scriptures as literally as you can has only been a thing for a few hundred years. The true Church has never done that which is evident through History. Even the literal interpretation of God the Father paints Him as angry and vengeful when truly He transcends those emotions. The God you believe in is very different from the True God, but the only way you can come to the conclusion that scripture should be taken literally is by elevating yourself delusionally to believe that you have the capacity to understand God in all of His ways, which the scriptures clearly indicate is impossible from the human perspective. Good luck with that Cindy. I used to think that way too and it only leads to darkness and confusion True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
You moved the goalpost since Cindy said, “angels came to earth and ‘went into’ the women” but you replied about, “if a baby was conceived from a Nephilim ritual.” As for, “a fallen angel that possessed” since there’s zero indication Angles, fallen or not, ever possess anyone. There’s literally zero indication that, “The women bearing children which were possessed…falls in line with the scriptures” nor with, “The Church for the last 2,000 years” and I literally wrote the book on that, “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.” What you did is to reject what you caricature in your assertion of a, “literal interpretation of scriptures that I see within Protestantism” and replaced it with a made up fantasy based on mere folklore. True Freethinker to Nick Philo:
“Protestant denominations…interpret scriptures as a literal historical document in all of its content” is a mere assertion. “completely ridiculous” is a merely emotively subjective assertion. 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.” Leslie Coomer: Maybe sons of Seth and daughters of Cain? Christopher Goldman: This proves God was not a liberal. He didn’t try to understand the inequity of the giants upbringing. We’re the giants traumatized and had ptsd? Were the giants underprivileged or having white privilege? See. God made a straight forward answer. Michael Cordet Meyers to Christopher Goldman:
God also made them that way. As he did everything else. Infallible? I think not. Christopher Goldman to Michael Cordet Meyers:
I guess it makes sense if we figure out God was one of Elohim or Annunaki and not omnipotent. And also, was yawey (I can’t spell that) beholden to Anu? Was Anu the main God of gods? True Freethinker to Michael Cordet Meyers:
That’s a theologically incoherent assertion so what makes you assert that? True Freethinker to Steve Laurence Cadungog Lequido:
What does a ridiculous cartoon have to do with anything?
Peter Stuifzand to Gustav Burger:
Enoch was the chosen one. To hide this fact alone they invented the Jesus lie. Everything in this so called manmade system is is ment to hide the truth about our flat square earth as described in the very first book of Enoch. So thats including all reLIEgions. True Freethinker to Peter Stuifzand:
The ubiquitous appeal to a mysterious “they” who are never defined: seen is 1,001 times. What’s “reLIEgions”? 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.” Peter Stuifzand to Gustav Burger:
Enoch1 is the oldest book known to mankind, much older than the oldest bible and probably even older than 6000 years and nowhere in Enoch1 was the name of Jesus Christ mentioned, nor a Messiah. The letter J is not even older than 600 years. Enoch described the spirit of the sun/son of the lawd/lord. The spirit is the sun. Many reLIEgions have figures like Jesus such as Mithras, Horus, Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, Boeddha, etc etc. This is called syncretism. True Freethinker to Peter Stuifzand:
You’re basing a mere assertion on a text for which there’s zero indication that it existed before it was written a few centuries BC. Peter Stuifzand to Gustav Burger:
Christians can or will not even read their own bible properly. The godssss in the bible are in reality the black elves who are hiding themselves on Atlantis probably together with the Nephilim and their human slaves. The black elves are trying to rule the world from there..What most people think what the grey aliens are, are in reality also the black elves Larry Price: It’s going to happen again Ramon Mares III: So my the words of that verse, God was man… And the Angels were also???? Timona Mbogani: I agree with you…….. But….. Angels aren’t sons of God. Anges are angels. They can take the form of man, but won’t procreate with humans. Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). The generation of Adam through Seth were the sons of God. Eve the untainted and righteous Noah was the son of God. The sons of men were the seed of the serpent through Cain the son of the evil one Serpent (1 John 3:2). I hope you have seen in the Bible, Cain wasn’t the son of Adam. And before the serpent was cursed in Genesis 3 to crawl like snakes, he was upright, clever and very subtle than even Adam himself (And even the serpent’s spiritual generation that walks on two feet like we humans up to now are very subtle than any creature on earth). When the sons of God (through Seth) intermarried with the sons of men (through Cain) fame rose. And it became sinful before God cos their imagination became continually evil and giants were also born. Rolando William to Timona Mbogani: In the Bible, the title “Son of God” and “sons of God” can refer to different people or groups of people, with different meanings: Jesus In Christianity, Jesus is the unique “Son of God” because he has the same nature as God. The title is used in the New Testament and early Christian theology to describe Jesus’ status as the divine son of God the Father. Adam Adam is called the “son of God” in Jesus’ genealogy because he was created directly by God. Angels Angels are called “sons of God” because they were created by God. Israel In the Book of Hosea, God calls the nation Israel “My son”, making it a “son of God” in a special sense. Peacemakers In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that those who are peacemakers will be called “sons of God”. Believers Believers who are part of the resurrection of the righteous dead are also called “sons of God”. Historical figures In the Old Testament, historical figures like Jacob and Solomon are referred to as “Sons of God” because of their descent from Adam. The title “son of God” is defined more in terms of being submissive or in one accord with God, rather than in biological terms. Timona Mbogani to Rolando William:
I agree with you to an extent…… where in the Bible are angles called sons of God? Which scripture? Rolando William to Timona MboganiL The “sons of God” are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 6:1–4: The story The “sons of God” lusted after the daughters of men and had children with them, resulting in the birth of giants called the Nephilim. The Nephilim were described as “mighty men of old” and “men of renown”. God sent a flood to destroy the giants and cleanse the earth. There are multiple interpretations of who the “sons of God” were: (Fallen angels:) The “sons of God” were angels, as the phrase “sons of God” is used to refer to angels in other parts of the Old Testament. However, Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. (Powerful human rulers:) The “sons of God” were powerful human rulers at the time. The daughters of men were commoners, and the union between the two groups led to a race of people who rebelled against God. (Godly descendants of Seth:) The “sons of God” were godly descendants of Seth who intermarried with wicked descendants of Cain. (Evil spirits:) The “sons of God” were evil spirits who took possession of the bodies of wicked men and used them for their own sinful purposes. Timona Mbogani to Rolando William:
you’re evading my simple question with your long stories. Is there any scripture that says angels are sons of God????
True Freethinker to Timona Mbogani:
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. True Freethinker to Rolando William:
It’s not the case that “Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry” since Jesus was only speaking of “Angels of God” who are “in heaven” and not all of them all the time in all times and places. It was about the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it, in order to do so. Gordon Ogana to Timona Mbogani:
excuse…where does the theory of Cain being not the son of Adam come from?,In Gen 4 Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived and begot a son with the help of the LORD…and she called his name Cain.In olden scripture it says that the children of God looked down from heaven and saw that the daughters born to men were fair.They took on bodies came down and picked as they pleased, after completing their mission they unclothed the human bodies wanting to return to heaven but God refused them.They are imprisoned somewhere in the present day Iraq waiting judgement. See Timona Mbogani to Gordon Ogana:
1 John 3:12. Cain was the son of the evil one. If Cain was the son of Adam, then you must mean that Adam was evil, yet the very Bible in Luke 3;38 calls Adam the son of God. If you say Cain is the son of Adam, then you mean Adam is evil, and you will be blaspheming God by taking God as the father of an evil one. Right? My question and Rolando Williams has avoided to answer, is there any scripture that says ANGLES ARE SONS OF GOD? True Freethinker to Gordon Ogana:
I was with you until the “They took on bodies” part since there’s zero indication of that in the entire Bible. Rather, 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.” True Freethinker to Timona Mbogani:
Why did you manipulate John, God’s Word? You cut the statement to avoid that John told us what he meant by that and it was nothing about genetics, “Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” Think about what else you wrote, “If Cain was the son of Adam, then you must mean that Adam was evil” but since Adam was the son of God, then you must mean that God was evil, right? Likewise, “If you say Cain is the son of Adam, then you mean Adam is evil, and you will be blaspheming God by taking God as the father of an evil one” well, if you say Adam is the son of God, then you mean God is evil, and you will be blaspheming God by taking God as the father of an evil one (Adam, the sinner). Right? As for, “is there any scripture that says ANGLES ARE SONS OF GOD?” 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. True Freethinker to Timona Mbogani:
“Angels aren’t sons of God. Anges are angels”: that’s a false dichotomy since more than one term can refer to the same thing. 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. “They can take the form of man”: there’s literally zero indication of that. Rather, 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.” “won’t procreate with humans”: that’s a mere assertion. 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.” What “The sons of men”? Why did John say “Cain the son of the evil one Serpent (1 John 3:2)”? You merely asserted, “Cain wasn’t the son of Adam” but I hope you have seen in the Bible that he is, Gen 4:1. “sons of God (through Seth) intermarried with the sons of men (through Cain)” is just a late-comer of a mythical view based on prejudice. Peter Gerald: But the Nephilim SURVIVED the flood!! The children of the Nephilim had corrupt DNA maybe that is why God told the Israelites to wipe out every man women and child of the Canaanites for the Nephilim were among them. True Freethinker to Peter Gerald:
By merely asserting, “Nephilim SURVIVED the flood!!” 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? What makes you think that God failed, that He missed a loophole, that the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.? Just how did you get them past the flood, past your failed god? You also merely asserted, “The children of the Nephilim had corrupt DNA maybe that is why God told the Israelites to wipe out every man women and child of the Canaanites for the Nephilim were among them” but there’s literally zero reliable indication of that and God told us many times why He commanded those things but never said one single word about Nephilim.
Ron Brooks: Who says angel form isn’t human like all the time? Two of them proceeded to Sodom and Gomorrah. They were seen as men there also. True Freethinker to Ron Brooks:
AMEN!!!!!! Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. Juan Esteban: Origins of Demons True Freethinker to Juan Esteban:
For a biblical view, please see my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?” George Edward Lozano: If giants bmad all the pyramids! And then it flooded ? How did they make the city’s without giants True Freethinker to George Edward Lozano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDv1_fJtBiI&t=3s Ancient Alien Megalithic Builders vs Wally Wallington & Edward Leedskalnin Darryl Williams: The Bible says “Sons of God,” it don’t say “Angels.” Wasn’t Enoch one of the Sons of the folks mentioned in Genesis 1:27? Prior the the creation of a slave man by “The Lord God,” CHI-HOWA. True Freethinker to Darryl Williams:
Any given thing can be referred to in more than one way: such as Jesus, Y’shua, Yehoshua, Christ, Kristos, Messiah, Mashiach, etc., etc., etc. 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.”
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.
