Granting that people discussing that Nephilim looked like clowns represent a very, very tiny little circle of interest, the current assertion that Nephilim looked like clowns has been the brainchild of a certain Paul Stobbs.
For serious research-based Nephilologists such as myself–I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data that I used to write my dozen, or so, Nephilology books–it’s tragic that modern pop-Nephilology is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales sold to Christians: it’s where the most embarrassingly ridiculous wild conspiracy theories that should die find a new home by being thrown in a blender & are mixed in till they leaven the whole lump.
In Stobb’s case, he represents one of many pop-Nephilologists who essentially didn’t exist online, made an assertion about Nephilim, and are now viewed as the authority on the subject–virtually overnight.
Part of how and why that happens is that the currently dogma/party line is that for a Nephilologist to become popular they have to, at the very least, assert post-flood Nephilim and that they were, “giants.”
Those of us who don’t shake those un-biblical hands aren’t invited to lecture at conferences, to be interviewed for documentaries, to have books published by the big cheeses, etc.
Stobb’s case is interesting since he, purposefully or not playing into the click-bait cottage industry of all things, “Nephilim,” or not, he mixed what I’ll term cultural anthropology regarding, “clowns,” by any other name, along with occultism, and Nephilology.
As I noted in my article, Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?, he does well regarding the history of clowns and occultism but utterly fails when he plugs Nephilim into the mix.
Therein, I also noted that I’m somewhat uniquely qualified to review Paul Stobbs’ claims due to my Nephilology studies and have done some conspiracy sleuthing, and have researched the history of clowns (specifically for my book A Worldview Review of Stephen King’s “It”: The Mystical, Mysterious, and Metaphysical in the Novel, Miniseries, and Movies).
The bottom line is that the claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions.
For one, Stobbs made the mistake of relying on and then merely parroting pop-Nephilologist Gary Wayne who committed the category error that violates the law of identify that Nephilim were fathered by, “Seraphim Angels.”
Well, there’s no such thing: Seraphim are Seraphim and Angels are Angels.
Moreover, Wayne and Stobb merely assert that Seraphim are serpentine/reptilian–for which there’s literally zero indication.
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.
Seraphim are described as having, “six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew…Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for” (Isa 6).
I suppose we can say that serpents have faces but not wings, nor feet, nor hands.Yet, Paul Stobbs merely uncritically picked that up from Wayne and used it (abused it) to assert that this accounts for some of the Nephilim’s traits.
Yet, he has much bigger problems since the fact is that we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim–and Stobbs knows this which is why he never make the simple argument that well, he can simply quote the Bible where it describes them. And FYI: the reference to their size in Num 13:33 is invalid since it’s merely recording an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, see my post, Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
In any case, Paul Stobbs isn’t really concerned about their size but about other physical features such as the shape of their heads, the color of their skin, etc.
He thinks that by appealing to serpent/reptile he can then claim various color schemes, the shape of eyes, etc.
Thus, the making of a modern-day myth that Nephilim looked like clowns is 100% devoid of backing data.
So, how it is that Stobbs could hit the pop-Nephilology ground running, get people to donate to him to write a book, publish books, be invited to all sorts of shows for interviews, etc.?
It’s because pop-Nephilology is un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians and is also a loos in spiritual warfare when pop-Nephilologists asserts post-flood Nephilim: since post-flood Nephilology began with a, “Don’t do in the woods” fear-mongering scare-tactic meant to dissuade the Israelites to not do what God had commanded them–and it worked, it led to an additional four decades of wilderness wandering.
Given the gullibility and wild-conspiracy theorizing of pop-Nephilologists, they tend to believe first and ask questions later–actually, it’s believe first and only believe without asking questions.
Also, such neo-mythology is self-perpetuating since those who insta-believe him uncritically feed into flaming the fires by making comments such as, “Wow, now I realize why I’ve always been afraid of clowns” or noting, “People are afraid of clowns” which are biased subjective and myopic statements–since clowns have been beloved for years.
Then they will also strain their brain, and search engines, specifically searching for things such, “creepy clowns” and will appeal to any and all such movies, celebrities and serial killers who dressed like clowns, red nose day, etc., etc., etc. and delude themselves into thinking there’s a there there only because they locked their thinking, or lack thereof, into a tight little circle of self-perpetuating seeming verification of the pop-myth: they experience leader-lead tunnel vision as they follow the leader down a rabbit-hole of their own making.
I have told dozens upon dozens (upon dozens [upon dozens]) of people praising Stobbs’ assertions what I noted above, “The claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions. For a detailed review of claim, see, ‘Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?‘”
The result has been that 99% don’t even bother replying and those who do react emotionally rather than substantively, since I’m daring to critique their hero–now you see how cults, especially cults of personality, are born. Perhaps 1% make a half-baked and fleeting attempt to tackle one thing I noted but then run away to their safe space.
Also, in typical pop-Nephiloloist manner, Paul Stobbs only appears on shows that are just platforms for him to merely assert whatever he wants, in an utterly unchallenged manner.
Thus, that’s a self-licking ice-cream cone, a vicious circle, whereby the hosts, who typically know little or nothing about the subject(s) spend the whole interview just going, “Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…” and henceforth perpetuate the myth and Stobbs gets ever popular as the authority–since no one even challenges him so it seems he can do, or say, no wrong.
Mere assertions absorbed by gullibility and no fact-checking in terms of challenges make for wonderful myths that are tragically devoid of any factual backing whatsoever but they sure do exhibit this sentiment, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.