Sa’Quan Hicks wrote an article titled Goliath and the Nephilim: Analyzing the Biblical Lineage and Post-Flood Giants which is categorized as a, “Case Study.”
Hicks is described as, “Exercise Scientist and seasoned coach…certified personal trainer…accomplished writer…holds a Diploma in Psychology” among other accolades.
Hicks open with, “Goliath, the giant warrior defeated by the young David” so we must keep an eye out to see if we will get replies to these key questions: What is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What is Hicks’ usage? Do those two usages agree?
Added is, “a lesser-known theory that suggests Goliath was not merely a physical giant, but a descendant of the Nephilim” about whom that which I term the Gen 6 affair is quoted thusly (Gen 6:1-4):
“When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’ 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” (Genesis 6:1-4, NIV).
It is noted, “The traditional interpretation suggests that the ‘sons of God’ were fallen angels who took human wives, producing a hybrid offspring known as the Nephilim, often described as giants.’”
Do you see why those key questions are key? We cannot know what, “described as giants” means unless Hicks elucidates that usage.
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.
Sa’Quan Hicks notes, “The Nephilim are portrayed as mighty warriors and heroes, but their presence is associated with corruption and wickedness, leading to the flood that wiped out humanity, except for Noah and his family” and then asks, “The Nephilim’s existence before the flood is well-established in Genesis 6:4, but the question arises: how did they survive the flood, if at all?”
Furthermore, “Some biblical scholars argue that the Nephilim bloodline continued after the flood, and this theory is crucial for understanding the lineage of Goliath” and yet, it is not in the least bit crucial since he was a Repha, not a Nephil—nor could he have been since they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form since God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
See, the view of, “Some biblical scholars” would mean that since, “The Nephilim are portrayed as…leading to the flood that wiped out humanity, except for Noah and his family” then if there is ever, “Nephilim’s existence before the flood” then God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and un-biblical fantasy tall-tale stories have to be artificially concocted to support just how it was that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Of course, when seeking to support the post-flood Nephilim view, Hicks appeals to the one and only available option: one single post-flood sentence:
While the flood is said to have wiped out the Nephilim and all other life except for Noah and his family, the possibility of the Nephilim bloodline surviving post-flood is supported by certain biblical passages. In Numbers 13:33, the Israelite spies report seeing giants in the land of Canaan:
“We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33, NIV).
The qualifying term, “While” is very telling since it casts doubt on the very clear biblical data that, “the flood…wiped out the Nephilim and all other life except for Noah and his family.”
Note that, “the possibility of the Nephilim bloodline surviving post-flood” is a supposed possibility that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.—and yes, this is about theology proper since fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
The only sentence to which appeal can be fallaciously made is presented too vaguely since one would have to know the chapter very well in order to understand that, “In Numbers 13:33, the Israelite spies report seeing giants…” really means that out of the 12 spies, it was the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked who, “reported seeing” what Sa’Quan Hicks has as, “giants.”
Having actually only quoted half of the sentence which is cited as being v. 33, Hicks notes:
These giants, referred to as the Anakim, are described as the descendants of the Nephilim. The Anakim were a group of giants living in the land of Canaan, and their presence suggests that the Nephilim bloodline did indeed survive the flood. The Bible further supports this idea by stating that the Anakim were a formidable people who caused fear among the Israelites, just as Goliath did centuries later.
Let us quote the verse in whole, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Thus, Hicks has mashed two categories, Nephilim and Anakim, together into one, “These giants, referred to as the Anakim, are described as the descendants of the Nephilim” but then, who were, “These giants”?
Hicks seems unaware of the relevant linguistics such as biblically contextually, “These giants, referred to as the Anakim, are described as the descendants of the Nephilim” reads as, “These Nephilim, referred to as the Anakim, are described as the descendants of the Nephilim”—for linguistics insights, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
We might as well get to this point now: the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not 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.
Hicks’ usage seems to be something generic about vague height at some unknown level above the subjective parochial average—which would be a usage that is as useless as it sounds. Thus, Hicks’ usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage.
When we are told, “referred to as the Anakim, are described as the descendants of the Nephilim” we must keep in mind a few fundamental points:
1. that is as per 10 unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies who were said to make that claim within an evil/bad report and were rebuked by God.
2. that is as per only non-LXX/Septuagint versions of that sentence since the LXX’s version does not even mention Anakim at all.
3. As we will see, we are reliably told that Anakim were Rephaim, like a clan of a tribe, and Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
For an elucidation of many more logical, bio-logical, theo-logical problems with the one and only sentence to which any and all post-flood Nephilologists can fallaciously appeal, see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, Hicks uncritically picked up one sentence, ran with it, and applied it which is why the erroneous conclusion is, “Anakim were a group of” Nephilim, “living in the land of Canaan, and their presence suggests that the Nephilim bloodline did indeed survive the flood” which is basing a fallacious conclusion upon a fallacious argument upon one version of one fallacious sentence.
As for, “The Bible further supports this idea by stating that the Anakim were a formidable people who caused fear among the Israelites, just as Goliath did centuries later” well, that is a result of picking up, running, and applying since it is a non sequitur that being formidable and causing fear must necessitate that Anakim were Nephilim.
Sa’Quan Hicks then notes:
In Deuteronomy 2:10-11, the Anakim are described as “a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakim.” The Israelites, upon hearing about these giants, were filled with fear and hesitation. This passage reinforces the idea that giants, or descendants of the Nephilim, were still present after the flood, and their legacy continued to shape the biblical narrative.
It is redundant to write in terms of that, “Anakim are described as…the Anakim.” What Deut 2 is doing is telling us that on average, all Rephaim were, “tall” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “giant.”
It also tells us that Rephaim were a.k.a. Zamzummim (or Zuzim) and that two clans of that tribe were the Anakim and the Emmim:
…we…traveled along the desert road of Moab…(The Emites used to live there—a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites…we crossed the Zered Valley…(That too was considered a land of the Rephaites, who used to live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites. They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites.
As for, “This passage reinforces the idea that giants, or descendants of the Nephilim” there is not one single reference to Nephilim in Deut 2 (nor anywhere else in the whole Bible besides the reliable Gen 6:4 and unreliable 13:33) so that is another non sequitur. See, Hicks picked up, ran, applied and then reads Nephilim into texts that say anything about them: we were just told that a text that makes it clear that Anakim were Rephaim was actually, somehow, telling us that Anakim were Nephilim.
As for to whatever, “tall” refers:
1. it is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
2. it is irrelevant to Nephilim since the dirty little secret is that since we do not have a reliable physical description of Nephilim so that 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 that are sold to Christians.
Thus, when Sa’Quan Hicks asserts, “The direct connection between Goliath and the Nephilim bloodline is made clearer through the genealogy of the giants in the Bible” there is literally zero indication of any such thing.
That assertion is directly followed with:
Goliath is described in 1 Samuel 17:4 as a giant from Gath, one of the five Philistine cities. His height is given as “six cubits and a span” (approximately 9 feet 9 inches), which is consistent with the descriptions of the Nephilim and their descendants as being of extraordinary size.
Note that, “extraordinary size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “tall” and, “giant.”
Hicks’ usage of the term giants is not biblical and it is merely asserted that, “9 feet 9 inches…is consistent with the descriptions of the Nephilim and their descendants as being of extraordinary size” which is vague since the implication is that, “We seemed like grasshoppers” implies, “9 feet 9 inches” which is, “extraordinary size” all of which is vague question begging.
For some reason, Hicks did not note that while Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft., the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. soc that’s the preponderance of the earliest data—not that this matters to Nephilology since, again, we do not have a reliable physical description of them.
Moreover, Sa’Quan Hicks wrote:
In 2 Samuel 21:19, Goliath is referred to as the “brother of the giant,” indicating that he was part of a family of giants. This passage also mentions that Goliath’s family was from the city of Gath, which was known for producing giants. The connection between Goliath and other giants is significant because it suggests that Goliath was not a lone anomaly, but part of a larger lineage of giants that could trace their ancestry back to the Nephilim.
Being unaware of the linguistics and misusing linguistics, Hicks in unaware that, “Goliath is referred to as the ‘brother of the giant’…family of giants…producing giants…larger lineage of giants” biblically contextually reads as, “Goliath is referred to as the ‘brother of the Repha’…family of Rephaim…producing Rephaim…larger lineage of Rephaim.”
If Hicks knew that, the assertion, “that could trace their ancestry back to the Nephilim” would not have been made.
Furthermore, Hicks wrote and quoted:
Moreover, 1 Chronicles 20:5-8 offers further evidence of Goliath’s familial ties to the giants. It describes the defeat of Goliath’s brothers, who were also giants, by David’s warriors. The passage states:
“In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair struck down the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod. In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all. He also was descended from the giants” (1 Chronicles 20:5-8, NIV).
The mention of Goliath’s brothers and their similar physical traits—such as the six fingers and six toes—suggests that Goliath’s family was part of a larger giant lineage, likely descended from the Nephilim. The presence of these physical characteristics, which are often associated with
giants in biblical texts, further strengthens the argument that Goliath was a descendant of the Nephilim.
Read biblically contextually, the statement was, “Goliath’s familial ties to the Rephaim. It describes the defeat of Goliath’s brothers [sons, really], who were also Rephaim…descended from the Rephaim…Rephaim lineage.”
As for, “huge man” well, that is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “extraordinary size,” “tall” and, “giant”—something about being taller than 5.0-5.3ft. by some unknown margin.
There is no indication whatsoever that, “six fingers and six toes—suggests…descended from the Nephilim” since there is literally zero indication that those, “physical characteristics…are often associated with giants in biblical texts” since they never are: that was only stated about one single tall Repha.
Sa’Quan Hicks then argues:
The biblical references to the Anakim and the giants of Gath provide additional context for understanding Goliath’s lineage. The Anakim were a prominent group of giants mentioned in the Old Testament, particularly in the context of the conquest of Canaan. As noted earlier, the Israelites were terrified of the Anakim, and their fear was not unwarranted, as the Anakim were known for their size and strength. The fact that the Anakim are described as descendants of the Nephilim suggests that the Nephilim bloodline continued to exist after the flood.
In fact, “The biblical references to the Anakim and the Rephaim of Gath provide additional context for understanding Goliath’s lineage” which is that he was of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim tribe and Anakim are named after Anak who was Abra’s son (Josh 15:13; 21:11) and with literally zero reliable indication that any of them, at any time, in any place, in any way, had anything to do with Nephilim.
Thus, “The Anakim were a prominent group of Rephaim mentioned in the Old Testament” and that, “Israelites were terrified of the Anakim, and their fear was not unwarranted, as the Anakim were known for their” generically vague unknown, “size and strength.”
By this point, we cannot forget that, “The fact that the Anakim are described as descendants of the Nephilim” is a fact from one single unreliable sentence from an unreliable report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Thus, there is zero indication that, “the Nephilim bloodline continued to exist after the flood.” In order to come to that conclusion, one must ignore 100% of the reliable data, play the name-swap game, water down an undefined modern English word, and chase that modern English word around an ancient Hebrew Bible—to name only a few problems including that the 10 contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible.
Fallacious Nephilology makes the reliable unreliable and the unreliable reliable.
Hicks then notes, “In Joshua 11:21-22, the Israelites are said to have defeated the Anakim in the hill country, but the giants were not entirely eradicated” which, or so it is merely asserted, “suggests that while the Israelites defeated many of the Anakim, some giants remained in the cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod—cities that were later associated with Goliath and his family. The continued existence of giants in these regions indicates that the Nephilim bloodline survived the flood and persisted in the post-flood world.”
Accurate re-write, “In Joshua 11:21-22, the Israelites are said to have defeated the Anakim in the hill country, but the Rephaim were not entirely eradicated…suggests that while the Israelites defeated many of the Anakim, some Rephaim remained in the cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod—cities that were later associated with Goliath and his family. The continued existence of Rephaim in these regions indicates that the Rephaim bloodline” had nothing whatsoever to do with, “the flood” since Rephaim did not even exist until centuries post-flood.
More re-writes of Sa’Quan Hicks’ assertions, “The idea that Goliath was a descendant of the Nephilim [Rephaim] has significant implications for the understanding of giants [Rephaim] in the Bible. Giants [Rephaim], as described in the Old Testament, were not simply physical anomalies; they were often portrayed as formidable opponents who instilled fear in the hearts of God’s people. The [utterly irrelevant] Nephilim, as a hybrid race of beings, represented a distortion of God’s creation, and their continued existence after the flood is seen as a reminder” that God must have failed, must have missed a loophole, and the flood must have been much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.: note that Hicks did not get around to telling us just how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
Another re-write, “The presence of giants [Rephaim] like Goliath in the biblical narrative serves as a symbol of the challenges that the Israelites faced in their journey toward the Promised Land. Goliath, in particular, represents the ultimate challenge to God’s chosen people—a giant [Repha] who defies the Israelites’ faith and seeks to undermine their mission. The victory of David over Goliath, therefore, is not just a story of a young boy defeating a giant, but a powerful reminder of God’s sovereignty over all creation, including the giants [Rephaim] descended” who has utterly nothing at all to do with, “the Nephilim.”
Let us close with one last re-write, the “Conclusion”:
In conclusion, the biblical evidence supports the theory [demonstrable fact] that Goliath was [not] a descendant of the Nephilim, a hybrid race of giants mentioned in Genesis 6.
The genealogical connections between Goliath and other giants [Rephaim], such as the Anakim, provide strong evidence that the Nephilim bloodline [did not and could not have] survived the flood and [and did not and could not have] continued to exist in the post-flood world.
Goliath’s extraordinary size [of just shy of 7ft.], his familial ties to other giants [Rephaim], and the continued presence of giants [Rephaim] in the cities of Gath and Ashdod all point to the conclusion that Goliath was [not in the least bit] part of the Nephilim lineage.
This case study [was not one that] offers a comprehensive analysis of the biblical and historical evidence regarding Goliath’s [non] descent from the Nephilim [but from the unrelated Rephaim], shedding light on the concept of giants [Rephaim] in biblical times and their role in the ongoing spiritual battle between good and evil.
The biblical narrative is very clear and easy to follow when read and applied as is:
Nephilim lived pre-flood.
They did not make it past the flood in any way, shape or form.
Centuries post-flood, 10 unreliable guys made up a fear-mongering, scare-tactic, “Don’t go in the woods!” style of tall-tale and were rebuked by God.
Rephaim became a tribe centuries post-flood.
Anakim became a clan of that tribe centuries post-flood.
They have utterly nothing whatsoever to do with Nephilim.
End of biblical story.
See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.