Edward Antonio (“founder of Elevating Your Life and a student of theology and church history”) wrote an article titled Who are the Nephilim in the Bible?
He notes, “Scholars and commentators translate the word Nephilim as giants or fallen ones…translated as giants in some versions of the Hebrew Bible but left untranslated in others” with fallen ones being a translation, due to the root naphal (fall/fallen/to fall/feller/to cause to fall) while giants is technically a rendering—which, incidentally, is why the oh so popular term Nephilim giants biblically contextually means Nephilim Nephilim.
He tells us, “The Nephilim are ‘mighty men’ described in the Old Testament as incredibly large and physically strong” we will have to see if he elucidates why we should think that.
He quotes:
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. (Genesis 6:4)
Edward Antonio notes, “The majority of ancient biblical translations interpret the term to mean ‘giants’” yet, that only begs these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the ancient biblical translations’, and Antonio’s, usage? Do those two usages agree?
Also, he must mean, “The majority of” English (subjectively, “ancient biblical translations” since, of course, giants is an English word.
He next tells us, “Genesis 6:1-6 never states that the Nephilim were giants” but since he hasn’t told us to what he’s referring by giants we either read that as never states that the Nephilim were _______ without the blank being filled in or, as per his statement about the translation, never states that the Nephilim were Nephilim which would be circularly redundant as well as contradictory—if giants merely translates Nephilim.
He then wrote, “Number 13: Nephilim as Giants” and, “The verse that clues us into them being giants is Numbers 13:33, which states, ‘and there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.’ Here, Scripture indicates they were possibly giants, men much larger and stronger than usual.”
That was why he wrote, “incredibly large and physically strong.”
He then quotes the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (for more such references, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010):
This word, translated “giants” in the King James Version, but retained in the Revised Version (British and American), is found in two passages of the Old Testament—one in Genesis 6:4, relating to the antediluvians; the other in Numbers 13:33, relating to the sons of Anak in Canaan.
In the former place the Nephilim are not necessarily to be identified with the children said to be borne “the daughters of men” to “the sons of God” (Genesis 6:2-4); indeed, they seem to be distinguished from the latter as upon the earth before this unholy commingling took place. But it is not easy to be certain as to the interpretation of this strange passage.
In the second case they clearly represent men of gigantic stature, in comparison with whom the Israelites felt as if they were “grasshopers.”
This agrees with Genesis 6:4, “the mighty men that were of old, the men of renow.” Septuagint, therefore, was warranted in translating by gigantes.
Note that while initially he told us giants is a translation of Nephilim and without reason to think that Nephilim means anything other than a reference to falling (in the male plural) his actual usage has something to do with, “incredibly large.”
Thus, “Nephilim as Giants” no longer biblically contextually means, “Nephilim as Nephilim” but due to his switch of usages is now, “Nephilim as incredibly large.”
Now, that, “The verse that clues us into them being giants is Numbers 13:33” as he quoted it and, “in Numbers 13:33” as the Encyclopedia had it are generic and myopic statements because neither elucidated that in that sentence Nephilim are being correlated to Anaim only in non-LXX versions since that version doesn’t even refer to Anakin there.
But what of, “incredibly large…giants…much larger…gigantic stature…gigantes.”
For some reason, we weren’t told that gigantes means earth-born (as in, born of the Greek false earth goddess Gaia) so implies nothing about height of any sort.
Now, the Encyclopedia claimed of Genesis 6:4 that therein, “the Nephilim are not necessarily to be identified with the children said to be borne ‘the daughters of men’ to ‘the sons of God’” but of course they are, that’s one of the main points of the first few verses in Gen 6.
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.
As for that, “they seem to be distinguished from” those in Num 13:33, there’s no reason to think that.
Note that, “the Israelites felt as if…” is really not the Israelites, in general, since what neither Antonio nor the Encyclopedia noted is that Num 13:33 merely records one sentence from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Since there’s literally zero reason to believe them, then every indication is that there were no post-flood Nephilim (since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.), nor is it then possible that Anakim were related to them, and the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue since the only physical description we have of them is from an unreliable report by unreliable guys—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, we’ve literally zero biblical indication that they were, “incredibly large…giants…much larger…gigantic stature” nor even, “stronger…physically strong.” Sure, they were mighty men but historically, so have many people who weren’t physically strong.
Before continuing, the answer to the third of those key questions is that the Encyclopedia and Edward Antonio’s usage doesn’t agree with the English Bibles’ usage since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
He then reviews, “Who Are the Nephilim? 4 Different Theories”:
1: The first view is that fallen angels had relations with the “daughters of men,” which resulted in a part human, part supernatural being – the Nephilim.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “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.
Antonio notes:
Opposition to the theory. One pushback for this position of Nephilim being the offspring of angels and humans is that angelic beings don’t have the DNA to combine with humans. They are spiritual beings; therefore, it’s not possible that they can produce offspring.
Again, this assumes that angels can’t have the same DNA as humans. Some would argue that it’s possible because we see two angels take the form of a human in Genesis 19:1-13. Who is to say they didn’t carry the full reproductive capabilities?
Such opposition is based on un-biblical Angelology which is man made traditions.
That, “angelic beings don’t have the DNA” (the only angelic beings are Angels, by definition) is a mere assertion.
As for, “spiritual beings” well, humans can be spiritual but we produce offspring or a regular basis. The issue here is that it’s a common mistake to swap spirit with spiritual. And yet, the only indication they are spirits is that one modern English word that’s wrongly used in some Bible versions to wrongly translate ruach or pneuma.
There’s no indication at all that, “we see two angels take the form of a human in Genesis 19:1-13” rather, “we see two angels…of a human in Genesis 19:1-13.”
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.
Thus, Gen 19 has Angels appearing as just what they are, as a brute fact, and it’s artificial to insert, “take the form of” into a text that states no such thing.
2: The second position held by some is that demons or fallen angels possessed men and then had relations with the “daughters of men,” resulting in the Nephilim.
It can’t be, “demons or fallen angels” since demons didn’t exist yet (see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?) nor do Angels possessed anyone nor is there indication that demon/Angel possessed people birth Nephilim—or else, again, God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. since Nephilim would have continued to be born all along since the flood.
3: A third position, called the Sethite View, is held by some scholars. The Sethite View defines the “sons of God” as the righteous line of Seth.
Think about it, “the righteous line of Seth” wasn’t righteous since, after all, they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
Also, that view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice such as there’s no indication of a, “righteous line of Seth.”
4: Lastly, a view held by the minority is the “sons of God” were simply fallen men.
I’m unsure how or why fallen men would be referred to as sons of God—unless it’s like the case with the Angel view as per those Angels are referred to as such but never again after they fell. Of course, the issue becomes what did those fallen men do to become the premise for the flood?
Interestingly, he now retreats from giants having something to do with subjectively unusual height and goes back to that, “we must go back to the fact that there is still debate as to what the term Nephilim means as it’s related to the verb series ‘to fall’…which means fallen or to fall.”
Now, this brings up a gigantic issue since he continued with, “Support for the theory. This position is consistent with Scripture, both pre-flood and post-flood…After the flood (when God destroyed everyone but the family of Noah), these Nephilim are still showing up (Numbers 13:33). Therefore, the Nephilim are simply fallen men.”
Certainly, fallen men existed since the pre-flood fall and ever since: including Noah and fam. But if it’s the case that Nephilim merely refers to simply fallen men then why is there only one single reference to simply fallen men in the entire rest of the post-flood Bible and why only from one single sentence from an unreliable report by unreliable guys?
He then speaks for broadly in terms of answering, “Why Are the Nephilim on Earth after the Flood?” which is not the primary question, the primary question is, “Are the Nephilim on Earth after the Flood?” the biblical answer to which is, “Of course not since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.”
Post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus: fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
The issue is, “If God flooded the earth, killing all mankind besides the family of Noah, how is it that Nephilim are still alive?” and reviews how, “Scholars have responded in a few different ways.”
1. One answer to this question is: The Nephilim were giants, offspring of fallen angels (sons of God), and human women, so fallen angels continued reproducing with human women after the flood.
At this stage by, “Nephilim were giants” does he mean, “Nephilim were fallen” or, “Nephilim were subjectively tall”? In any case, there’s literally zero indication that, “fallen angels continued reproducing with human women after the flood” and that’s just another form of implying that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
2. Another answer would be: The sons of God are fallen men. After the flood, different godly men had relations with different ungodly women and reproduced the Nephilim once again.
Again, one single reference to post-flood Nephilim proves this view is fallacious.
He then notes, “Extrabiblical Evidence of Nephilim in the Book of Enoch” but 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) even that tall-tale doesn’t have physical post-flood Nephilim—it has it that unclean spirits aka demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim but that’s just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah—again, see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Edward Antonio notes, “The Book of Enoch describes angels marrying women on earth, and the offspring were a giant type of beings” in this case, giant means something about height, alright, since it has Nephilim as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.
Interestingly, he notes, “Enoch is not considered the inspired, authoritative word of God. Jews and early Christians held this book as a good read. Meaning it wasn’t fully accurate but still held nuggets of truth” and that, “Some say that it should be in the biblical canon because Enoch is quoted in Jude 1:14. But other writings are also quoted in Scripture that are clearly not the word of God (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).”
We might as well note that Paul quotes Greek poets so, what of it? Also, what Jude quotes of 1 Enoch is, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” That seems to have been paraphrasing Deut 33:2, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.”
Edward Antonio then gets into the issue, “Who Were Rephaim and Anakim and Are They Related?” noting, “We can’t forget to consider the Rephaim when we speak of giants in the Bible and the Nephilim (Genesis 14:5).” So, now we’re back to giants appearing to be used to mean something about height.
He notes, “One of the definitions of Rephaim, according to the Jews, is a people group of greater-than-average height and stature (Deuteronomy 2:20-21), also known as the Zamzummim. They were as tall as the Anakim, according to Scripture, which are other giants in the land.”
I’m unsure to whom, “the Jews” refers when it comes to, “definitions” but Rephaim is the male plural based on the root rapha which ranges from healing to dead and nothing about, “greater-than-average height and stature”—see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Yet, that’s linguistically speaking since indeed, on average, Rephaim were, “greater-than-average height and stature” since Deut 2 refers to them as, “tall” which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
As for Anakim, they were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe—not anything to do with Nephilim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Having written of Rephaim, by any other name, he then asks, “Where did these giants come from? Some would argue that they can be traced back to Genesis 6” which is logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible—and based on one single unreliable sentence from only non-LXX versions.
He answers, “How Tall Were the Nephilim?” by rightly noting, “The Bible does not provide specific details about the physical characteristics” but adds:
Several biblical texts provide indirect clues about the height of the Nephilim. For instance, Numbers 13:33 mentions that the Israelite spies saw Nephilim in Canaan and felt like grasshoppers in comparison, implying considerable height.
Additionally, Goliath, a giant described in 1 Samuel 17:4, was “six cubits and a span” tall, which is approximately 9 feet 9 inches. King Og of Bashan, another giant mentioned in Deuteronomy 3:11, had a bed about 13 feet long, suggesting he was close to this height.
As we saw, referring to, “the Israelite spies” generically in general, since there were 12 of them, is misrepresenting the narrative since he’s actually referring to the 10 unreliable, God rebuked, ones.
Goliath was a Repha so he’s irrelevant here and for some reason, Antonio didn’t mention that 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.
He actually asks, “Was Goliath a Nephilim?” and elucidates, “in 1 Samuel, chapter 17. Goliath is described as a giant” with that Hebrew word being Repha, “and a champion of the Philistines…the Bible does not indicate a measurement to determine Nephilim.
Og was also a contextually irrelevant Repha and Antonio has to refer to his, “bed” since we’ve no physical description of him. As for, “suggesting he was close to this height” that’s based on various mere assumptions: bottom line is that he didn’t mention that the bed was a ritual object, not some thing upon which Og slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
