Carl Joseph’s bio notes, in part, “Carl is a biblical scholar, minister, husband, father and life coach. In his mid-twenties he had a powerful encounter with God and saw miraculous healings as a result.”
His article Tower of Babel: Gateway to the gods is very reminiscent of Gary Wayne’s modus operandi: quote anything written by anyone for any reason in any genre from any time and any place, employ vague terminology, and mash together a theory—claiming that the theory is fact, as a result.
He notes:
The Historian Josephus claims, that Nimrod, persuaded the people to ascribe their happiness to him rather than God, seeking worship for himself. Nimrod was indeed the founder of all false religions, still in existence, to this day…Babel derives ultimately from an Akkadian word that means “gateway to God.” In the pursuit of accessing God’s throne, Nimrod became something else entirely, changing his biology forever.
Since the Bible states no such thing about him, this appears to be a case of: thus saith Josephus (centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah).
We’re also told, “The Midrash (Rabbinical writings) also describes the tower of Babel, built on tall columns designed to protect it from another divine flood.”
Since the Bible states no such thing about him, this appears to be a case of: thus saith Midrash (Rabbinical writings) (from millennia after the Torah).
My point isn’t: not as old ergo untrue but rather, from centuries, if not millennia later, and without any indication that actual history is being relayed.
The only biblical statement about Nimrod is, “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:8–9).
Since modern Nephilologists have turned Nimrod into the ultimate do-it-all bad guy, they can’t allow, “before the Lord” to mean, “before the Lord” but claim that it actually means: against the Lord. Moreover, as Carl Joseph puts it:
In his research for the Shinar Directive, Dr. Michael Lake presents a word study of the term, “he began to be.” The Hebrew word is chalal, which means to, “profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically.” He did so in order to become a ‘mighty one’ which is the Hebrew term gibborim.
This term can mean “mighty, champion, chief or even giant” in some lexicons. Could it be that Nimrod became a giant by profaning himself either sexually or genetically, in order to replicate the stature of his antediluvian forefathers?
Dr. Lake goes on to cite, Annette Yoshiko in her Cambridge University Book, Fallen Angels and History of Judaism and Christianity, stating “the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, are always grouped together with the gibborim which are the progeny of the Watchers and human women.” The Septuagint translation (LXX) also states that Nimrod began to become a giant, “Cush begat Nimrod. He was the first to be a giant on the earth” (Gen 10:8).
He follows this with some modern painting and an old sculpture of Gilgamesh which he titles as, “Nimrod the Giant (with his 375 pound ‘kitty cat’)”—yes, Gilgamesh.
Let us review:
Now, applying a meaning of, “profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically” isn’t across the board since, for example, Gen 9:20 notes, “Noah began [ḥālal] to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard” but there’s nothing wrong with planting a vineyard and so this can’t read, “Noah profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard.”
Also, “mighty one,” singular, isn’t gibborim but is gibbor—the “im” part makes it male plural and it is a mere descriptive term meaning might/mighty. We might as well get to a key issue since Carl Joseph employs the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giant” without ever defining it.
Thus, the key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Carl Joseph’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
These are key questions because without the answer to the second one, for example, we can’t know to what he’s referring by asking, “Could it be that Nimrod became a giant by profaning himself either sexually or genetically, in order to replicate the stature of his antediluvian forefathers?” Now, as for, “the stature of his antediluvian forefathers”: he merely artificially inserts that into the article without precedent. In other words, he’s given us no reason to think that anyone pre-flood was of any, “stature” that anyone would want to replicate for any reason nor by any means. Unless, that is, by stature he means status. Yet, we, his readers, should not be left to wonder and guess: he should be elucidating.
As for, “Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, are always grouped together with the gibborim which are the progeny of the Watchers and human women” well, this appears to treat Nephilim and gibborim as two distinct groups (the gibborim) and only has gibborim as progeny of the Watchers and human women—with Watchers being a mere a.k.a. for Malakim/Angels from centuries after the Torah.
Rather, the text is informing us that Nephilim were gibborim: mighty men and it was Nephilim who were progeny of the Watchers and human women.” We’re told, “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.”
Also, it’s incoherent to assert, “Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, are always grouped together with the gibborim” since Angles and Nephilim and Nimrod and some of David’s soldiers and Boaz and God, etc., etc., etc. are all referred to as gibbor/im and without any grouping with Nephilim 99% of the time.
It’s also impossible that, “The Septuagint translation (LXX) also states that Nimrod began to become a giant, ‘…giant on the earth’ (Gen 10:8)” because that’s not Greek, that’s English. The LXX employs γίγας or γίγαντες in such cases: gigas or gigantes. The giga portion refers to the Earth via the false Earth goddess Gaia which is why gigantes means earth-born. Thus, we can only assume that giant via gigas has something to do with height (which appears to be what’s being implied—since Carl Joseph won’t tell us) is if we plug it into some usages that have something to do with Greek mythology.
Yet, again without telling us to what he’s referring, Carl Joseph declares:
Evidently, Nimrod became the first post-flood giant. His nefarious act, fulfilled Moses’ prophecy of giants, “and also after that” (i.e., the flood-Gen 6:4).
Adam Clarke the famous commentator, also cites within the Syriac Targum that, “Nimrod was called a giant.”
Dr. Lake then goes on to mention that, “Clarke claims the city of Babel and its tower, were ‘built by giants.’ This begs the question, ‘was Nimrod a mighty hunter of animals or man, seeing that he was part human and fallen angel?”
In the sculpture of Nimrod (above), he holds a 375-pound African lion as a mere “kitty cat.”
From this depiction, one could estimate Nimrod’s stature to be anywhere between 10-15 ft, not too dissimilar from other giants in the Old Testament, namely Og of Bashan (Dt 3:11), Goliath (2 Sam 21:19) and the Anakites (Dt 9:1-2).
Now, due to the appeal to Gen 6, we can only conclude that, “Nimrod became the first post-flood giant” must mean, “Nimrod became the first post-flood Nephilim” which is incoherent since there’s never been any such a thing as post-flood Nephilim.
Also, note that since there’s not a single verse that makes any such statement, Carl Joseph quoted fragments of a verse and then had do insert, “i.e., the flood…” into a verse that states nothing of it: in fact, the flood’s not mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.
The issue with, “the Syriac Targum that, ‘Nimrod was called a giant’” is the same as with the LXX reference: that’s not Syriac, it’s English, and Carl Joseph doesn’t bother elucidating the original langue issue nor from when it dates, etc., etc., etc.
Okay, “Clarke claims the city of Babel and its tower, were ‘built by giants’” the question to which is: so what, what does that mean, how does he know, etc., etc., etc.
The question that’s begged isn’t the mere asserted, “was part human and fallen angel” but what on Earth makes you merely assert that he was (since there’s literally zero indication of that)—especially after Carl Joseph quoted, “Cush begat Nimrod” to us—and Cush was no Angel.
Now, for some reason, Carl Joseph thinks that we ought to take a sculpture (from whenever and wherever) should literally be taken literally—enough so to make determinations, including the weight of the lion.
And we finally for a clear answer to the second key question: by “giant,” he means something vague about subjectively unusual height. And so, we also got the answer to the third key question which is, “No” since his usage has nothing to do with the English Bibles’ usage. That’s because the answer to the second question is that “giants” is merely rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” in two texts and “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so it never even hints at anything whatsoever to do with height.
As for, “10-15 ft, not too dissimilar from other giants in the Old Testament, namely Og of Bashan (Dt 3:11), Goliath (2 Sam 21:19) and the Anakites (Dt 9:1-2).” Well, we’ve no physical description of Og so he’s a non-issue, Goliath was just shy of 7ft., and as for the Anakim, Dt 9:1-2 notes, “Hear, O Israel: you are to cross over the Jordan today, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven, a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’” and that they were “tall”—which is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants”—only means they were taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days. So, where are any 10-15 ft “giants” anywhere at all?
But the way that Carl Joseph answers, “How did Nimrod become a Giant?—before bothering to establish that he did become subjectively unusually tall: taller than 5.0-5.3ft—is, “The Bible does not explicitly mention how Nimrod became a giant” but no worries, just appeal to anything, “there are clues in Historical Jewish writings as to how antediluvian technology might have been revived after the flood. Consider the following passage highlighting a discovery by Canaan (cursed grandson of Noah-(Gen 9:25) and great uncle to Nimrod), from the Book of Jubilees 8:1-5” which has it that there was a recipe for creating Nephilim and so more were created post-flood—nothing like fresh homemade Nephilim! Also, BTW, Nephilim aren’t created via a recipe (some sort of ritual) but via mating sons of God with daughters of men.
Carl Joseph considers it, “certainly possible” that, “this forbidden knowledge” was eventually shard, “with Nimrod, aiding him to ‘become’ a gibborim?” (again, this should have read “a gibbor”).
Next comes the name-game whereby one way to attribute all sort of fanciful things to Nimrod it to claim that historically, he, “goes by many names…Ninurta…Gilgamesh…Amenhotep III…Tukulti-Ninurta” and my favorite, “Sargon of Akkad and Naram-Sin, grandson of Sargon” so he was his own grandpappy! He slices, he dices, he chops, he blends: here’s how to order!
Carl Josph even tells us, “The Book of Jasher identifies Nimrod as the inaugural tyrannical leader” even thought The Book of Jared is a modern day hoaxed fraud—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
He then has a section titled, “Giants, Giants, everywhere!” about, “historical reports of Giants being scattered throughout the nations” but they are irrelevant since the tallest person to whom he referred us was just shy of 7ft.
But let that not stop a good tall-tale since he went on to write, “The fact that giants are mentioned in this manuscript, only fuels the speculation that Nimrod was in fact, a giant, and perhaps the leader of giants in the post flood era” since he is unaware that biblically speaking, “giants in the post flood era” means, “Rephaim in the post flood era” and nothing more.
In short, what we get in Carl Joseph’s article is sadly typical of modern Nephilology: the concoction of an exciting tall-tale built upon anything said by anyone at any time and for any reason presented to us in terminology that is watered down enough to assume cohesion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.