D. Gene Williams, Jr., PhD, of Defend the Word Ministries related to North Pointe Church is a, “Trinity School of the Bible and Theological Seminary, Alumnus.”
He wrote an article titled, Sons of God and the Nephilim: A Study in Biblical Rebellion and Redemption the parts we will focus on being the relevant data regarding Sons of God and the Nephilim.
The abstract notes, “The Nephilim, enigmatic figures mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4 and Numbers 13:33, have long sparked theological and scholarly debate regarding their identity and significance in biblical narratives” with the plural narratives being those two verses.
He notes, “The discussion is framed around two primary interpretative views: the supernatural perspective, which sees the Nephilim as the hybrid offspring of angelic beings and humans, and the Sethite view, which identifies them as the result of intermarriage between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain.”
It is also noted, “The paper also examines references to the Nephilim in the New Testament” which is surely a unique claim.
“THE TWO MAIN INTERPRETATIVE VIEWS” subsection elucidates:
The Supernatural View: “Sons of God” as Angelic Beings
Scriptural Basis:
The phrase “sons of God” (bene ha’elohim) appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, particularly in Job 1:6 and 2:1, where it unambiguously refers to angelic beings. This lends credence to the interpretation that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are also supernatural entities.
I would put it thusly, “The Paranormal View: “Sons of God” as Angels” since that was 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.
Also, because technically, the only super natural being is God since He alone wholly transcends nature, His creation, from eternity.
A better citation of Job would be 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.
The end of the, “supernatural entities” sentence included a citation of Dr. Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm (pp. 102-104) which is good and bad news. Overall, William’s article cites Heiser 29 times. The good is that Heiser was a credentialed and experienced ancient languages scholar. The bad is that his Nephilology was not wholly biblical and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:
Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy
Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”
I also included him in my book, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
It is also noted, “Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 reference rebellious angels, often tied to the Genesis 6 narrative in Jewish and Christian tradition, strengthening this view.”
Indeed, 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 is only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if the Gen 6 affair (as I term it) was not that sin then no one knows to what Jude and Peter were referring.
We are also told, “The Book of Enoch, an influential Second Temple text, explicitly describes the ‘Watchers’ (angelic beings) descending to earth, marrying human women, and producing hybrid offspring—the Nephilim. Other ancient Jewish sources, such as the Book of Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon, elaborate on this narrative, portraying the Nephilim as giant offspring and emphasizing their role in increasing wickedness on earth.”
Certainly, they, “explicitly describe” and, “elaborate” but those are folkloric tall-tales from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah and oft contradict the Bible—see my books In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
As for, “giant offspring” we will have to see if D. Gene Williams, Jr. provides us answers 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 his usage? Do those two usages agree?
We seem to get a hint at his usage when he follows directly with, “The supernatural view identifies the Nephilim as the literal offspring of the union between angelic beings and human women, resulting in beings of extraordinary power, stature, and influence” if by stature he is referring to height and we get more than a hint, it is quite blunt, when he continues by referring to, “Nephilim’s…association with physical gigantism (Numbers 13:33).”
We might as well deal with this 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.
Williams, Jr. usage is 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, Williams, Jr. usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage.
As for, gigantism in Numbers, we will burn that bridge when we get to it.
The other reviewed view is:
The Sethite View : “Sons of God” as the Godly Line of Seth
In this view, the “sons of God” are understood as the descendants of Seth, the godly line from which worship of Yahweh continued. The “daughters of humans” are interpreted as the descendants of Cain, representing moral corruption and rebellion against God.
Intermarriage Leading to Moral Decline:
The union between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain resulted in spiritual compromise and widespread sin. This mixing of righteous and unrighteous lineages mirrors other biblical warnings about intermarriage with unbelievers (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:3–4, 2 Corinthians 6:14).
The Sethite view is a late comer based on myth and prejudice. For example, there was no such thing as, “the godly line” nor, “descendants of Cain, representing moral corruption and rebellion against God” nor, “righteous and unrighteous lineages.”
Moreover, this view implies that the godly line were not godly after all since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that is rather odd.
When it comes to the, “IDENTITY OF THE NEPHILIM” Williams, Jr. notes:
Etymology of the Term “Nephilim”: Hebrew Root npl ( ָנַפל): Two Views
“To Fall” (Naphal)
The term Nephilim is widely understood to derive from the Hebrew root npl (נפל), meaning “to fall.” In this interpretation, Nephilim is a passive form in the qatil pattern, rendering the meaning “fallen ones.” This view aligns with the idea of beings who have fallen morally or spiritually, possibly rebellious angels cast down from heaven or humans symbolizing corruption and decline. Scriptural usage of npl elsewhere supports this connotation, often denoting physical or moral descent (e.g., Genesis 4:6; Isaiah 14:12).
“Giant” (Aramaic Naphila)
Michael Heiser and others suggest Nephilim could derive from the Aramaic word naphila, which translates to “giant.” This interpretation ties the Nephilim to extraordinary physical stature and strength. The Septuagint (LXX) supports this perspective by translating Nephilim as gigantes (“giants”). However, critics argue this term reflects later interpretative traditions rather than the original meaning of the Hebrew text. The reliance on naphila is contested due to its absence in pre- biblical texts and its speculative link to Hebrew usage.
Note how what we are left with regarding naphila (also transliterated as naphiyla) is a circle since, “translates to ‘giant’…Septuagint (LXX)…translating Nephilim as gigantes (‘giants’)” still only begs the question what does giants mean, what is its usage?
If naphila means giants what does that mean?
If gigantes means giants what does that mean?
Well, 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” (Private communique, July 2019).
And, gigantes actually means earth-born.
Thus, to re-write, “Nephilim could derive from the Aramaic word naphila, which translates to ‘fall.’ This interpretation ties the Nephilim to extraordinary physical stature and strength. The Septuagint (LXX) supports this perspective by translating Nephilim as gigantes (‘earth-born’).”
Moreover, D. Gene Williams, Jr. noted, “The connection to naphila as ‘giant’ is compelling in light of the Septuagint but remains uncertain due to the absence of direct evidence linking it to early Hebrew tradition.”
He moves on to:
The Nephilim are introduced in a narrative describing the union of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of humans.” The text identifies the Nephilim as “heroes of old, men of renown.” The ambiguity in this passage leaves room for interpretation regarding whether the Nephilim were offspring of these unions or coexistent figures in the antediluvian world.
Well, there is no room left since 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.
He then comments:
Numbers 13:33
Here, the Nephilim are mentioned as the ancestors of the Anakim, described as giants who instilled fear in the Israelite spies. The spies’ report emphasizes their immense size and the Israelites’ perceived inferiority, describing themselves as “grasshoppers” in comparison.
Characteristics and Depictions in the Biblical Text
“Heroes of Old, Men of Renown” (Genesis 6:4)
The Nephilim are portrayed as figures of great fame and power, possibly legendary rulers, warriors, or demigods. Their “renown” implies a status that set them apart from ordinary humans. This description aligns with ancient Near Eastern traditions of semi-divine heroes, such as those in Mesopotamian mythology, while maintaining a distinct theological focus on human corruption.
Giants in Numbers 13:33
The spies’ description of the Nephilim as giants associates them with physical enormity and an intimidating presence. While the term gigantes in the Septuagint reinforces this view, some argue it reflects an exaggerated fear narrative rather than an objective description. The connection to the Anakim further supports the idea of the Nephilim as a race of giants, continuing their legacy in post-Flood contexts.
The term ְנִפיִלים (Nephilim) has been the subject of extensive lexical, contextual, and theological analysis. Major lexicons, dictionaries, and ancient translations overwhelmingly favor the interpretation of Nephilim as “giants,” posing significant challenges to the Sethite view, which traditionally downplays their extraordinary nature.
Let us unpack these hugely problematic assertions.
Williams, Jr. has watered down and mashed together two sets of spies and two reports into one. It was not, “fear in the Israelite spies” nor, “The spies’ report” since there were 12 spies but the ones who exhibited “fear” were, “the” 10, “Israelite spies” who were unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers and they are the ones who presented the second report in that chapter, “The” 10, “spies’” evil, “report” which consists of five assertions that are unbacked by even one single over verse in the whole Bible.
Thus, unreliable guys in an unreliable sentence in an unreliable report are the ones quoted in Num 13:33 so the, “Here” is their evil report where, “Nephilim are mentioned as the ancestors of the Anakim” and yet, that is myopic since, for some reason, Williams, Jr. did not mention that such is only as per non-LXX versions of that evil report since the LXX does not mention Anakim there.
As for, “described as giants who instilled fear in the Israelite spies” well, contextually, what instilled fear in the 10 Israelite spies was the prospect of facing six strong people groups living in large and well-fortified cities.
The original, reliable, accepted as is, report listed whom they actually saw, “the descendants of Anak…Amalekites…Hittites…Jebusites…Amorites…And the Canaanites” not a word about Nephilim.
And as for, “described as giants” to which Williams, Jr. generically adds, “The spies’ report emphasizes their immense size” the original, reliable, accepted as is, report emphasized strength, not size, and in their initial discouragement, the 10 agreed that it was about strength, “the people who dwell in the land are strong…Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, ‘Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.’ Then the men who had gone up with him said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we are.’”
It is then that we are told that they, the 10, presented an evil/bad report and they took it up a notch by merely asserting they saw Nephilim and something about height.
And note that, “immense size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “giant.”
Moreover, Williams, Jr. wrote:
Giants in Numbers 13:33
The spies’ description of the Nephilim as giants associates them with physical enormity and an intimidating presence. While the term gigantes in the Septuagint reinforces this view, some argue it reflects an exaggerated fear narrative rather than an objective description. The connection to the Anakim further supports the idea of the Nephilim as a race of giants, continuing their legacy in post-Flood contexts.
The term ְנִפיִלים (Nephilim) has been the subject of extensive lexical, contextual, and theological analysis. Major lexicons, dictionaries, and ancient translations overwhelmingly favor the interpretation of Nephilim as “giants,” posing significant challenges to the Sethite view, which traditionally downplays their extraordinary nature.
Again, it was not generically, “The spies’ description” so that is misleading, it was the 10.
Biblically contextually, “Nephilim as giants” means, “Nephilim as Nephilim.”
And, “physical enormity” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “immense size,” and “giant.”
As we noted, “the term gigantes in the Septuagint” only directly tells us that they were earth-born.
Also, there is no reliable, “connection to the Anakim.”
While the Sethite view is fallacious, Williams, Jr. does not make a good argument against it via, “the interpretation of Nephilim as ‘giants,’ posing significant challenges to the Sethite view” since his statement is actually, “the interpretation of Nephilim as ‘some unknown level above the subjective parochial average,’ posing significant challenges to the Sethite view” which it does not since the dirty little secret is that since we have 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.
The only physical description we have of them is, “we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” and that is from one unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Now, “the idea of the Nephilim as a race of giants, continuing their legacy in post-Flood” is a logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically incoherent view that damages theology proper.
D. Gene Williams, Jr. very specifically pointed out, “Nephilim, as products of this [Angelic] rebellion, symbolize the corruption and disorder introduced into creation, contributing to the moral decay that necessitated the Flood. It emphasizes God’s judgment…The Flood as Divine Judgment…The judgment of the Flood (Genesis 6:5–8) is presented as a direct response to the corruption caused by this supernatural-human interaction” (emphasis added for emphasis).
Thus, it was Nephilim (in part) who, “necessitated the Flood” as that was, “God’s judgment” which was the, “judgment of the Flood” as, “a direct response.”
And yet, he just taught, “Nephilim…post-Flood” which clearly implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
He will also have to artificially invent some sort of un-biblical fantasy tall-tale story about how they got past the flood, past God.
So, the implications are that Nephilim, “necessitated the Flood” but it did not work, that was, “God’s judgment…judgment of the Flood” but it was much of a waste, it was, “a direct response” but God failed.
Williams, Jr. then circles back to linguistics:
LEXICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING “GIANTS”
Key Lexicons:
Lexham Research Lexicon (2020): Defines Nephilim as “giants,” reinforcing their connection to larger-than-life figures in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.
Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Lexicon (1977): BDB aligns with the Septuagint in interpreting Nephilim as “giants.” While it mentions a possible derivation from the root נפל (npl) (“to fall”), this is deemed “dubious” and secondary to contextual evidence of physical stature and renown.
Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (2003): Critiques the “fallen ones” interpretation, favoring “giants” or “those who fall upon” (attackers). Gesenius emphasizes the extraordinary stature and renown of Nephilim, consistent with Numbers 13:33.
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT, 1994–2000): HALOT emphasizes “giants” as the primary meaning, closely tied to the biblical descriptions of the Nephilim as renowned, physically imposing figures.
Horst Seebass, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (1998): Explores the root נפל and its usage, noting the possibility of connections to “falling,” but focuses on the term’s contextual meaning as referring to figures of renown and imposing stature.
The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible (2017): Highlights “giants” as the dominant interpretation, grounded in biblical context and later Jewish traditions.
Wörterbuch Zum Alten Testament (2009): Concurs with major lexicons, defining Nephilim as “giants” without linking them to moral or spiritual fallenness.
Concise and Classical Dictionaries
The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (1993–2011): Identifies Nephilim as “giants,” consistent with ancient translations and emphasizing their imposing physicality.
The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (2009): Similarly defines Nephilim as “giants,” underscoring their renown in biblical accounts.
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages (1997): Defines Nephilim as a “renowned race of giants,” noting the theological debate but emphasizing their physicality.
Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (2001): Describes the Nephilim as giants, emphasizing their supernatural associations and their significance in Genesis 6:4.
James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (1909): Notes the Nephilim as figures of immense physical stature, whose legendary reputation aligns with the translation “giants.”
M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1893): Supports the traditional understanding of Nephilim as giants, drawing on the Septuagint and biblical context.
Theological and Interpretative Resources
P. W. Coxon, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (1999): Provides a detailed analysis, tying the Nephilim to semi-divine giants and mythological figures common in Ancient Near Eastern traditions. This source emphasizes their extraordinary nature and their association with divine rebellion in Second Temple texts.
William B. Nelson Jr., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): Highlights the Nephilim as giants and ties them to their portrayal in Second Temple literature, where they are seen as symbols of divine-human boundary transgression
Ancient Translations Reinforcing the Supernatural View
Septuagint (LXX): Translates Nephilim as γίγαντες (gigantes), emphasizing their physical stature and mythological resonance as “giants.”
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: Translates Nephilim as gigantes meaning giants. “gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis postquam enim ingressi sunt filii Dei ad filias hominum illaeque genuerunt isti sunt potentes a saeculo viri famosi “
Years ago, I filled my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010 with such sources and many more. Thus, I can very easily spot the glaring errors: I will focus on two:
“giants” generically as, “larger-than-life” due to, “Numbers 13:33.”
“giants” generically as, “physical stature.”
“giants” generically as, “extraordinary stature” due to, “Numbers 13:33.”
“giants” generically as, “physically imposing.”
“falling” generically as, “imposing stature.”
“giants” due to, “biblical context” without elucidation, “and later Jewish traditions” from folklore from millennia after the Torah.
“giants” generically.
“giants” generically as, “imposing physicality.”
“giants” generically.
“giants” generically as, “their physicality.”
“giants” generically.
“giants” generically as, “immense physical stature.”
“giants” generically due to, “drawing on the Septuagint and biblical context” which is unelucidated.
“giants” generically as, “their extraordinary nature.”
“giants” generically due to, “their portrayal in Second Temple literature” which is folklore from millennia after the Torah.
“giants” generically as, “γίγαντες (gigantes)…physical stature.”
“giants” generically as the Latin, “gigantes” which is merely picking up the Greek.
So, from those sources, we got generic terminology and reliance on an evil report and late-dated folklore.
One cannot just read those sources, one must dissect them: how are they using giants and why are they using it in the manner in which they are using it?
Yet, Williams, Jr.’s take away is, “This reflects an interpretive tradition emphasizing the Nephilim as extraordinary figures in both size and renown” which is unwarranted.
He again emphasizes, “While Neofiti” referring to one of the Targumim (this one is from the 1st-4th centuries AD), “uses ‘sons of the judges’ instead of ‘sons of God,’ it retains the concept of giants, aligning with the Septuagint’s γίγαντες (gigantes)” which is not helpful since that merely means, “aligning with the Septuagint’s” earth-born.
For some unknown reason, the LXX employs gigantes to render Nephilim and gibborim and Rephaim and it was a tragically bad idea to render three very different words of very different morphologies and very different meaning with just one single word.
And we know that gibborim has nothing to do with at some unknown level above the subjective parochial average because it is merely a descriptive term for might/mighty and we know that it does not imply anything about size since Nephilim are referred to as gibborim (Genesis 6:4), sure, but so are Nimrod (Genesis 10:8), Angels (Psalm 103:20), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), some of King David’s soldiers (1 Chronicles 11:11), even God Himself (Isaiah 9:6).
Therefrom, we went even further into that about which I wrote in my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
Williams, Jr. makes reference to 1 Enoch which has Nephilim being MILES tall, which is great folklore but poor reality.
Dead Sea Scrolls, “References…Nephilim (e.g., in the Book of Giants) emphasize their extraordinary stature” as per late-dated folklore.
Also, “Texts like the Book of Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon echo 1 Enoch’s themes” and are also late-dated folklore.
At least not even 1 Enoch has physical post-flood Nephilim but Jubilees has a post-flood Nephilim return due to someone finding a recipe for fresh, hot out of the oven home-made Nephilim.
D. Gene Williams, Jr. then circles back to the Sethite view and again argues poorly against it, “The Sethite view faces considerable tension when confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Nephilim as” his misuse of the term, “giants” referring to, “extraordinary size and renown” for which he cites, “(Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33)” from which he can only get extraordinary size from the unreliable evil report.
He likewise fails by arguing for, “Nephilim’s gigantism” which, “aligns with their mythological portrayal in Second Temple literature” which is as relevant as that extraordinary size-Nephilim’s gigantism aligns with neo-pop-Nephilology.
He writes of, “Nephilim…hybrid giants…Nephilim as giants…Nephilim are best understood as ‘giants’” and circles back to:
The Nephilim Before and After the Flood…
Nephilim, described as…contributing to the justification for the global judgment of the Flood…The narrative explicitly connects the escalation of wickedness, including the actions surrounding the Nephilim, with God’s decision to bring the Flood as an act of divine justice (Genesis 6:7)…a cataclysmic response…
Post-Flood Mentions
The Nephilim and the Canaanite Giants (Numbers 13:33):
After the Flood, the Nephilim reappear in the report of the Israelite spies, who claim to have seen them in Canaan alongside the Anakim. They describe the Nephilim as giants, saying, “We seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (Numbers 13:33, ESV).
To, “necessitated the Flood…God’s judgment…judgment of the Flood…a direct response” we can now add, “global judgment of the Flood…God’s decision to bring the Flood” and yet, “After the Flood, the Nephilim reappear” but note the interesting qualifying term that I suspect was not conscious, “in the report of the [10] Israelite spies, who claim to have seen them.”
They did not appear on the ground, in real life, but only in a report which was a mere claim. Indeed, I can report that I claim to have seen the first POTUS George Washington, but he did not appear on the ground, in real life.
Note how myopic giant seekers get that the claim was, “claim to have seen them in Canaan alongside the Anakim” without noting Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites nor even Canaanites.
Williams, Jr. went on to claim, “Other post-Flood groups, such as the Rephaim, Anakim, and Zamzummim, are described in the Bible as giants…These groups are sometimes associated with the Nephilim, either as their descendants or as part of a recurring archetype of rebellious and threatening figures.”
By, “sometimes” he can only mean in one single sentence (and much, much, much latter dated folklore). He does not seem to realize that a list consisting of, “Rephaim, Anakim, and Zamzummim” is a list of one since Rephaim were aka Zamzummim (or Zuzim) and, again, Anakim were like a clan of that tribe.
D. Gene Williams, Jr. re-reiterates, “The Anakim, in particular, are explicitly linked to the Nephilim in Numbers 13:33, suggesting a thematic or genealogical connection” for which he cites The Book of Enoch, 7:1–9 which reads as follows—he cited the R.H. Charles version but it only has 6 verse in chap 7:
1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants.
2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, 4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. 6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
Besides fixating on the word giants in the manner of a word-concept fallacy, there is no indication whatsoever of, “Anakim…explicitly linked to the Nephilim” even in terms of a, “thematic or genealogical connection” in 1 Enoch.
Since Williams, Jr. circles to certain topics over and over, he then goes back to the flood and notes that one of the, “Interpretative Challenges” is, “Were the Nephilim Wiped Out or Did They Persist?”
He notes, “Proponents argue that the reappearance of the Nephilim could indicate a second incursion of angelic beings after the Flood, continuing their rebellion.”
Of course:
1. there is literally zero indication of any such thing.
2. just as with any post-flood Nephilim assertion, it implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
3. 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 is only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
He also notes, “Alternatively, the term ‘Nephilim’ may have been used symbolically to describe later giants or mighty warriors reminiscent of the pre-Flood figures” which debunks itself since if that was the case, why is there only one single usage of that word post-flood (and an utterly unreliable usage at that)?
Recall the unique claim that, “The paper also examines references to the Nephilim in the New Testament” which is surely a unique claim.”
Well, the only thing that was noted about that is:
While the Nephilim narrative highlights the escalation of wickedness and the need for divine judgment, the Bible also presents a redemptive plan culminating in Jesus Christ. This plan includes reclaiming the nations disinherited at Babel, a theme powerfully symbolized in Jesus’ sending of the seventy disciples…
I discern that Williams is paraphrasing Heiser and so he thinks that in the NT unclean spirits/demons by any other name, were spirits of dead Nephilim and yet, that is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?”
D. Gene Williams, Jr. goes on to note, “The universality of giant myths and legends across cultures provides a compelling argument for the global impact of the Nephilim or similar beings.” The problem with this is that he, at least in part, will be identifying and correlating such myths and legends by whether they mention his misuse of the term giants so that is a word-concept fallacy.
He then notes, “Megalithic Structures” which he thinks were Nephilim related due to his fallacious Nephilology: it is a form of a non-sequitur that concludes that large things must have been built for and by large people.
He even went so far down the incoherence rabbit hole that he mentioned, “Afghanistan’s Kandahar Giant” about which he, at least qualifies, “The alleged” with reference to:
…encounter with a red-haired, six-fingered giant during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002 presents a modern parallel to biblical descriptions. The military’s reported retrieval and concealment of the giant’s body echo the suppression of giant lore in mainstream narratives, fueling speculation about their continued existence.
Note that, “reported retrieval and concealment” in reality, refers to an internet hoax based on some anonymous guys making vague claims about generic regions and sold to us by two guys who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians: LA Marzulli and the plagiarist and evolutionist Steven Quayle. Not surprisingly, Williams, Jr. cites Quayle’s largely plagiarized book for that tall-tale, “Genesis 6 Giants” see my proof of his plagiarism 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.
He then asserts, “Jinn and Biblical Parallels” namely, “Islamic accounts of jinn, described as shape-shifting entities capable of interbreeding with humans, bear striking resemblance to the Genesis account of fallen angels” and yet, there is literally zero indication of shape-shifting Angels.
He then circles back to, “Megalithic Structures” and then to, “the depiction of a mysterious ‘handbag’ held by figures in Sumerian, Mayan, and Indonesian art” because, apparently, it is odd that throughout history, things have been carried in bags.
Yes, D. Gene Williams, Jr. asserts, “These symbols, although not explicitly explained, appear to represent tools or knowledge carried by beings who interacted with humanity” he is assuming they are symbols and not actual handbags and that they represent tools or knowledge. Well, perhaps they are symbols and symbolize just that yet, Williams, Jr. employs that so as to tie into folklore, “resonating with the idea of fallen angels sharing forbidden wisdom, as described in apocryphal texts like 1 Enoch and hinted at in Genesis 6” even though Gen 6 hints at no such thing.
He then moves on to, “Biblical Giants in North America…biblical giants, possibly linked to the Nephilim, may have existed in North America” which is biblically impossible since there was no North America in pre-flood days.
He specifies, “The Paiute tribe speaks of a race of red-haired giants…the Paiutes trapped the giants in Lovelock Cave, Nevada, where they were burned or suffocated. Early excavations in the cave uncovered numerous artifacts and bones, some of which were reportedly of unusually large size” with, “unusually” and, “large” being as just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “physical enormity,” “immense size,” and “giant.”
Such folklore is likely Native cultural memories of interacting with Vikings: red-haired giants. For details, see Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found?
D. Gene Williams, Jr. then writes of, “Biblical Parallels and Theological Implications”:
Deuteronomy 2:20–21:
References the Zamzummim, a race of giants who were destroyed by God to make way for the descendants of Lot. Similar descriptions of the Anakim and Rephaim suggest the presence of giants across the ancient world.95
Genesis 6:4 and Global Giants:
The biblical account of the Nephilim implies a global dispersion of giants, making it plausible for such beings to have left a footprint in the Americas [Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 134–136].
Once again, for his Deut 2 related statement, he cited, “Charles, ed., The Book of Enoch, 6:1–7” which does not even hint at any such thing.
As for Deut 2, again, it correlates Anakim and Emim with Rephaim/Zamzummim so that a re-write is, “References the Zamzummim, a race of Rephaim who were destroyed by God to make way for the descendants of Lot. Similar descriptions of the Anakim and Rephaim suggest the presence of Rephaim across the ancient world.”
As for, Gen 6:4, it can only be about, “Global Giants…a global dispersion” in the pre-flood world.
Therefrom, D. Gene Williams, Jr. notes, “giants in pre-Columbian America” specifically, “THE NEPHILIM GIANTS OF PATAGONIA” based on his concept of something generic about vague height at some unknown level above the subjective parochial average regarding, “Nephilim or similar beings” (similar in the manner of something generic about vague height at some unknown level above the subjective parochial average).
This leads to circling back to Gen 6, Num 13, and 2 Sam 21 regarding, “giants with abnormal physical traits, such as six fingers and toes, parallel descriptions of exceptional beings from biblical texts” about which we must convert his plurals into singulars, “giants” to giant/Repha, “beings” to being/human since this was about one single person, one Repha.
Williams, Jr. then turns to, “THE TALMUD AND THE RETURN OF THE NEPHILIM BEFORE THE MESSIAH”: Talmud, he is specifically referring to the Talmud Bavli/Babylonian Talmud which was codified between 300-500 AD—and about which a shortcut is my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
He notes, “Midrashic Accounts of Og and the Flood” which date to even later, more recently, than the Talmudim and is, by the nature and context of Midrashim, sermonizing homilies with no indication of containing historical accuracy. In this case, so the folkloric tall-tales go, the Repha Og anachronistically lived pre-flood, was very, very, very large, survived the flood by hanging onto the side of the ark, being fed by Noah, etc., etc., etc.—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
In the, “Biblical Allusions to the Return of Giants” section, he goes even further into pop-Nephilology territory in that he merely reiterates more of the hip, fad tall-tales:
Scriptural references provide a foundation for the belief in the reappearance of Nephilim in the end times:
Genesis 6:4 and the Days of Noah:
Genesis 6:4 describes the Nephilim as existing both before and after the Flood, framing their presence as a recurring phenomenon. This cyclical manifestation of rebellion parallels the eschatological conditions mentioned in the New Testament.
Jesus compares the days before His return to the days of Noah, stating: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26, ESV).
The days of Noah were marked by the Nephilim’s presence, suggesting a parallel in the eschatological future.
Based exclusively on one unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked, he asserts, “Nephilim…existing…after the Flood.” Yet, he actually claimed, “Genesis 6:4 describes the Nephilim as existing both before and after the Flood” yet, it does no such thing.
Now, if, “The days of Noah were marked by the Nephilim…” is why, “Jesus compares the days before His return to the days of Noah” did Jesus even hint at implying any such thing?
Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
But He kept speaking directly with:
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
Just because, “The days of Noah were marked by the Nephilim’s presence” does not mean that they, and everything else that was occurring in those days, must therefore, by definitional necessity, are even as much as a mere suggested in any such eschatological future.
He added:
Isaiah 13:3 (Septuagint):
The Septuagint translation states: “Giants are coming to fulfill my wrath.” This prophecy could imply a divine judgment involving the reemergence of giants as instruments of God’s eschatological plans.
Indeed, that is about, “fulfill[ing] my [God’s] wrath…a divine judgment” but not of, “giants” but rather, of humans.
Since Williams, Jr. is chasing around the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage and modern English word giants, he fails to note that what Isaiah wrote is that gibborim were doing such: God’s mighty ones—not Nephilim—“gibborim are coming to fulfill my wrath.”
Another favorite pop-Nephilology talking point is what D. Gene Williams, Jr. puts as:
Daniel 2:43 and “Mingling with the Seed of Men”:
In describing the final empire, Daniel writes:
“They will mingle with the seed of men, but they will not adhere to one another.”
This enigmatic phrase evokes Genesis 6:4, where fallen angels mated with human women, producing the Nephilim. Some interpretations see this as a prophecy of similar events in the end times.
In short, Daniel was referring to two human people groups that would intermarry but not engage in commerce—I included a whole chapter on those few words in Daniel in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology. There is no context in the sentences around that, nor the paragraph surrounding them, nor the entire book that allows for the pop-Nephilology misreading, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication: it is a case of taking a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext.
Another example of pop-Nephiloloists’ eisegesis is when he wrote and quoted:
Nephilim and Eschatological Fear
The reappearance of the Nephilim is often associated with fearsome events in the end times:
Men’s Hearts Failing from Fear (Luke 21:26):
“Men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth.”
This passage hints at unprecedented terror during the tribulation, potentially linked to supernatural beings like the Nephilim.
That generic statement was turned into, “The reappearance of the Nephilim” without precedence.
Perhaps we ought to take heed of what Jesus noted in that very context, in that very chapter, “when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified” rather than spinning tall-tales about giants.
Jesus noted:
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.
But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake…
You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name’s sake…
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near…there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world.
For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory…
Was any of that giants related or was any such thing even hinted at in any way? I trow not.
Now, “This passage hints at unprecedented terror during the tribulation, potentially linked to supernatural beings like the Nephilim” was a statement cited as, “[Graham] Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, 212–215” with Hancock having the following as his ultimate goal:
I think that all three of the world’s monotheistic faiths, whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, have been responsible for just a vast amount of misery in the world.
And I think that we’re not going to move on as a human race unless we actually move on from that time, where we don’t accept that something is true just because our parents or some guy with a beard tells us that it’s true, where we look for direct experience of the spirit and the divine.
This is the problem with all of those big religions, I don’t care whether Christians, Muslims, or Jews, you know, is that they are hierarchies, they’re bureaucracies, they’re power structures, and they do not offer a direct experience.
That’s why all of them persecute the use of psychedelics. They don’t want people to have direct contact with the divine (a timestamped clip of that statement can be found in the video, “How Joe Rogan Was Fooled by Graham Hancock,” World of Antiquity, Apr 30, 2024: https://youtu.be/IeIj_rNYhCU?t=2730).
Of course, pop-Nephilologists do not travel down this off-yellow brick road of their own making for nothing, they seek to end up with an assertion of, “The mingling of iron and clay in Daniel 2 has been interpreted as a metaphor for hybrid beings—possibly Nephilim—playing a role in the Antichrist’s dominion.”
That somehow leads him to circle back to, “During Operation Enduring Freedom, a U.S. Special Forces team allegedly encountered a 13-foot-tall, red-haired giant in the Kandahar region” for some odd unreasonable reason.
That follows directly with circling back to, “six fingers…additional fingers and toes.”
Then circling back to, “Islamic texts describe jinn as shape-shifting entities.”
And such is a styled pop-Nephilology tactic: make a statement, circle back to reiterate, circle back again, and again, and again which gives the appearance of providing a lot of data when it is merely reiterations in the style of the cheap debater’s trick of elephant hurling.
An appendix has Williams, Jr., providing this fantasy illustration:
He comments, “This evocative illustration portrays the Nephilim in an apocalyptic Middle Eastern setting, wreaking havoc amidst ancient ruins” the reply to which ought to be: what of it? Every indication is that it is 100% fantasy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
