Herein is a discussion that took place regarding the video “WHO ARE THE NEPHILIM in GENESIS 6 || Demons? Watchers? Giants?”
A certain MyTwoCents commented:
The 120 years was referring to how long humanity had left before the great flood would occur. This was God, as usual, allowing a grace period for people to repent and get right before their destruction.
The particular sin was humanity’s wilful invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies in order to impregnate their women, thinking they would achieve divinity in this way, and the abominable offspring these unions created. Noah’s bloodline was pure of this corruption.
Those Nephilim existed before the flood, and after the flood, because — although those which existed in Noah’s day were indeed drowned — such unions between fallen angels and humans did not cease to happen, as referenced by such later peoples as the Sons of Anak, Emim and Rephaim.
These inherently wicked and unredeemable people were later concentrated in the land of Canaan and threatened to corrupt the bloodlines of the rest of humanity, and this goes a long way toward explaining the otherwise hard-to-accept massacres of the inhabitants of that territory.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Friend, there’s zero indication of anything even like, “humanity’s wilful invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies”: in fact, Angels are described as looking like human males doing physical things without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
You say, “Noah’s bloodline was pure of this corruption” but that seems inaccurate since his wife and his sons’ wives were unlikely from his bloodline.
In any case, that seems to imply such is why God only preserved those eight people.
Yet, you assert, “Nephilim existed…after the flood” which implies that God failed. He meant to be rid of them but, “such unions between fallen angels and humans did not cease to happen” so the flood was much of a waste and they found a loophole that God missed, right?
But you think the evidence is, “as referenced by such later peoples as the Sons of Anak, Emim and Rephaim” but indeed, it was Anakim, Emim, and Rephaim: not Nephilim.
In fact, you don’t seem to realize that those three are Rephaim: Anakim were a clan of Rephaim and Emim is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim.
Indeed, those, “people were later concentrated in the land of Canaan” but not Nephilim.
You say, “this goes a long way toward explaining the otherwise hard-to-accept massacres of the inhabitants of that territory” but God told us many, many times why He commanded such, “massacres” but never said one single word about Nephilim.
MyTwoCents replied:
>Friend, there’s zero indication of anything even like, “humanity’s wilful invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies”: in fact, Angels are described as looking like human males doing physical things without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
In looking at Genesis 6:1 through 5, given that the very next verse after the statement that those Sons of God took wives of whomever they chose says that God declared that he would only tolerate humanity for another 120 years, it demonstrates that God was laying blame (not only on those angels, but also) on mankind for those unnatural unions, which could only mean that mankind willfully participated in them. This is plausible, from the standpoint that the angels took “wives”, and not concubines.
Now, although the word translated as “wives” (nā·šîm) in Genesis 6:2 is not really any more specific than “female”, clarification on this point seems to be made, in hindsight, in passages such as Luke 17:27 which emphasize how mankind continued feasting and marrying and being given (i.e. the daughters by their parents) in marriage right up until Noah stepped into the ark; which does seem to emphasize the precise transgression that the people wantonly continued to commit (agreeing to marry and the conceive offspring of angels, possibly in exchange for promised hidden knowledge from them) which resulted in their destruction.
Otherwise, it would seem peculiar, would it not, for Luke and Matthew to focus on the event of MARRIAGE as the important-to-mention life activity of the people that led up to their demise rather than some more daily routine activity, e.g. kept tending their flocks, kept buying and selling, or perhaps, some more obviously evil activity, e.g. murdering and thieving, or the like.
>You say, “Noah’s bloodline was pure of this corruption” but that seems inaccurate since his wife and his sons’ wives were unlikely from his bloodline.
In Genesis 6:9, where it says that these are the “generations (tō·wl·dōt)” of Noah, the word can be translated as “geneology”. Naturally, we can assume that this referred at least to his ancestry and, perhaps also, at most, included his sons who were alive at the time (Noah’s wives being excluded from his geneology, albeit part of his sons’).
It is then stated that he was “blameless (tā·mîm) in his generations”, which word conveys the sense of “healthy”, “wholesome”, “sound”, and “unimpaired”. The fact that this is pointed out using this choice of phrasing tends to support that the major sin did concern genetics.
>In any case, that seems to imply such is why God only preserved those eight people.
Yet, you assert, “Nephilim existed…after the flood” which implies that God failed. He meant to be rid of them but, “such unions between fallen angels and humans did not cease to happen” so the flood was much of a waste and they found a loophole that God missed, right?
God preserved only those eight people so as to eliminate the supernaturally-corrupted human bloodline. The Bible asserts that the Nephilim existed in those days and afterward. This is not a supposition of my own (cf. Genesis 6:4). God is infallible, lest He might choose not to fully succeed.
Taking this as an absolute, it can only be understood that it was not God’s intention through the flood to prevent any future such transgressions between angels and men; that would probably have required permanent termination of humanity, as angels like men — have free will to sin and might do so again after the flood; and did, it seems.
The flood was a sweeping solution at the time to remedy a problem that had reached a level that God found unacceptable.
>But you think the evidence is, “as referenced by such later peoples as the Sons of Anak, Emim and Rephaim” but indeed, it was Anakim, Emim, and Rephaim: not Nephilim.
In fact, you don’t seem to realize that those three are Rephaim: Anakim were a clan of Rephaim and Emim is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim.
What I realize from Numbers 13:33 is that Anakim were, according to scripture, descended from the Nephilim, although they were also called Rephaim, just as were the Emites who were “as tall as the Amakites” (cf. Deuteronomy 2:10). So, these passages support that they were all Nephilim stock.
>Indeed, those, “people were later concentrated in the land of Canaan” but not Nephilim.
You say, “this goes a long way toward explaining the otherwise hard-to-accept massacres of the inhabitants of that territory” but God told us many, many times why He commanded such, “massacres” but never said one single word about Nephilim.
Yes, not every aspect of the history given in the bible is stated outright. It’s a relatively compact volume; it tends to support its deeper statements by relying on the reasonable inferences of the reader.
Ken Ammi:
Hey MyTwoCents, the comedian Stephen Wright said, “If it’s a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone, somewhere is making a penny” ;o)
Of course, “mankind willfully participated in them” since the daughters of men married them.
But you skipped the point that there’s, “zero indication of anything even like, “…invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies.”
You say, “The Bible asserts that the Nephilim existed in those days and afterward” but afterwards of when?
As for, “future…transgressions between angels and men” He took care of that by incarcerating the sinful Angels and there’s only a one-time sin of Angels in the Bible besides that there’s zero indication of any such a thing reoccurring post-flood.
When you say, “I realize from Numbers 13:33” you’re appealing exclusively to one sentence from an “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why do you believe them?
As for, “Anakim were, according to scripture, descended from the Nephilim” that’s doubly problematic: 1) “according to scripture” is generic since you have to ask who said it, whey did they say it, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc. so, what scripture is telling you is that you should NOT believe them because they just made it up and 2) check the LXX for that verse, it utterly lacks reference to Anakim plus, in Deut 1 Moses relates that event and his retelling lacks reference to Nephilim—he’s concerned about the real problems on the ground, not concerned about some tall-tale.
It’s not just a simple case of dismissing facts by stating, “not every aspect of the history given in the bible is stated outright” since, again, the fact is, “God told us many, many times why He commanded such, ‘massacres’ but never said one single word about Nephilim.”
And that was the end of it since no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. 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.