Kevin C. (“full time missionary…working toward his MTh at Asia Graduate School of Theology (AGST)…teaches hermeneutics part time at a seminary,” etc.) posted an article titled Why The Nephilim Matter (Academia, 2020) which he begins by noting, “a long standing tradition of interpreting the Nephilim as the half-bread offspring of fallen angels and human beings. This interpretation was made popular in large part by its appearance in some second century BC Jewish writings [“Jubilees 4–5, 1 Enoch 6–11”]. Many today accept this interpretation largely based on faulty post exilic Jewish theology and a single argument over of the term ‘sons of God’ which appears in the book of Job in reference to angels.”
Succinctly, I would put it thusly: Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology. See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” (bene ha Elohim/בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים) can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi” (ἄγγελοί): plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth. Kevin does note, “the term sons of God is used in Job 1 in reference to angels.”
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’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
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.
Kevin follows up with, “Regarding how the angels managed to procreate with humans, why they would want to, and how exactly that would produce a race of gigantic human beings often goes beyond conjecture and far off into the realm of science fiction.”
We have already taken care of, “Regarding how the angels managed to procreate with humans” since it was the good olˈ fashioned way.
As for, “a race of gigantic human beings” well, the key questions are: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles? What is Kevin’s usage? Do those two usages agree?—hint: biblically contextually, “a race of gigantic human beings” means, “a race of Nephilim human beings” (with the, “human” portion being his assertion of his view for which he will argue).
When it comes to, “far off into the realm of science fiction” I could not agree more and yet, where speculation has gone tells us nothing about the validity or lack thereof of the original view. For my critique of the realm of sci-fi Nephilology, see my books such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and 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 is of the subjective opinion that, “To believe that the Nephilim were somehow the offspring of angelic and human sexual unions, serves as more of a distraction away from the major themes of Scripture which all center on the person and work of Jesus Christ” for some unstated reason except the assertion that, “Any hermeneutic or exegesis that takes us down such rabbit trails with no gospel application does harm to the church.” Well, that is another subjective assertion and he also only asserted the implication that all hermeneutic or exegesis must contain gospel application. I suppose we could argue that the hermeneutic or exegesis about how much a spoon made for Temple weighed usage can somehow have gospel applications and benefit the church but such is exactly how we end up with wildly imaginative (mis)applications at various levels of abstraction.
He begins elucidating his view by answering, “How does the flow and context of Genesis chapter 5 and the concept of firstborn sons inform our understanding of the account in Genesis 6?”
His reply begins thusly, “It is important to note from the onset that in chapter 5 of Genesis we do not have a complete and exhaustive genealogy of every person born after Adam. Rather it is highlighting the succession of Able though Seth (the appointed replacement of Abel).” Indeed, biblical genealogies are not exponentially mathematical lists but serve a purpose and out of all of Adam and Eve’s children, we are only told specifics about three because there was something notable about them. The way Kevin put it is, “These firstborn sons I will argue are a holy seed. I am using the word holy here in the sense of being set apart” in term of how, “holy seed is used in Ezra 9:3 to refer to the Levites, the priestly class” so that, “our Genesis 5 and 6 texts are thematically connected to the issue in Ezra 9.”
That is such that, “Able’s sacrifice…is according to faith…Abel’s blood speaks even still…continues to teach us (Hebrews 12:24)…Teaching of course being a priestly function (Lev 10:8-11, 2 Chron 15:3, 2 Chron 35:3, Neh 9:13)” yet, he has to admit, “Able is not the first born.”
He seeks to buttress that weak foundation by noting, “the Genesis 5 linage…would make clear to the original audience…at Sinai, that the idea of priesthood is being outlined here…Israelite firstborn sons held a priestly function” yet, there’s no indication that only first born men could be priests—in fact, as one example, “two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the Lord” (1 Samuel 1:3). And yet, Kevin asserts, “the idea of first born son is to be forever connected to the priesthood after Sinai.”
Then, “Another indication that Genesis 5 is thematically centered on priesthood comes from the words of Lamech (Genesis 5:29)” who’s, “words betray a hope for some kind of intersession, or atonement” since he stated, “called his name Noah, saying, ‘Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands’” (English Standard Version). Kevin considers this, “priestly propitiatory or atoning work.”
He then notes, “None of the sons of Seth have been successful priests who operated in such a way as to reverse the curse and fulfill the Genesis 3:15 promise…the failure of Seth’s line to undo the curse.” He adds, “Enoch’s [the one from the Sethite lineage] being pleasing in God’s site seems to have only been enough to rescue himself and not others.”
Thus, to Kevin, “The failure of these firstborn priestly sons, our holy seed as I am calling them, now becomes the backdrop for Genesis chapter 6.”
His take away is, “Chronologically, verses 1-7 of Genesis 6 are providing the historical narrative for the later half of Genesis 4 through Genesis 5.”
He then answers, “Does the grammatical structure of Genesis 6:2 point to a biblical theological understanding of sons of God as an elect people of God?”
His answer seeks to shows that, “Genesis 6 verse 2 is similar enough to Genesis 3:6 to warrant significant consideration” in terms of, “imagery” such as that, “sons of God” sought something, “seemingly forbidden” such as did Eve, he wrote, “the daughters of men were a forbidden fruit.”
Interestingly, he notes that such, “detail an early recapitulation of the fall of Adam” and footnotes, “Jude 11-16 which speaks of Enoch as a prophet speaking against the sins of false teachers. Specifically those who represent a false and half hearted religion like Cain and those who unite themselves to idolatrous women as in the days of Balaam. It would seem Enoch’s quarrel was in house among those first borns set apart as priests. Enoch’s being singled out in chapter 5 certainly draws a stark contrast between him and the others, all of whom lived and died without commentary.”
It is unfortunate that he bypassed Jude’s (6-7) reference to the sin of Angels and how he correlated it to sexual sin, “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.”
Kevin notes, “There is however, a far greater bulk of Scripture which demonstrate that the term sons of God mainly refers to elect humans” which is a non-issue since every language allows for a term or phrase to be used in more then one way, to refer to different things, etc.
Deuteronomy 32:5-8 reads:
They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation. Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people?
Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?
Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you.
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
Kevin references:
Deuteronomy 32:5-8 where the NET [New English Translation] bible makes a note stating that the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll translators had different assumptions.
Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelōn theou, “angels of God”), presupposing אֵל נֵיבְּ (béney ’el) or ֵאִלים נֵיבְּ (beney ’elim).
“Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently.
MT [Masoretic Text] assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX [aka Septuagint] has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly.
One issue, that I will not resolve herein, is the question of just when, “When” was. See, if it was, say, when, “To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided” (Genesis 10:25) or, “its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9) then, “refers to Israel” could not be since there was no such thing as Israel back then. So, one would have to find some intra-Israel time wherein to fit that event.
Kevin urges us to reject, “theological assumptions and even worldview which is revealed in pseudepigrapha texts or other extra-biblical writings” since they, “must be seen as deeply flawed” due toa that, “2 Corinthians 3:14 informs us that the minds of these authors were hardened”: “But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.” Thus, that was about the Tanakh, the Old Testament/Covenant and his is also a redutio ad absurdum of a genetic fallacy since, “deeply flawed…hardened” does not mean that 100% of their views were false. See my book, The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
Kevin notes, “We must ask whether or not the use of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 fits into a broader theological development of the term Sons of God. In other words is the term sons of God in Genesis 6 introducing a theme or concept that will be developed throughout Scripture or is it merely a linguistic term the original readers would have already been familiar with?”
We could likewise, “ask whether or not the use of son of man in reference to the individual Ezekiel fits into a broader theological development of the term Son of Man. In other words is the term son of man in Ezekiel introducing a theme or concept that will be developed throughout Scripture or is it merely a linguistic term the original readers would have already been familiar with?” I propose that consideration since, of course, in Daniel (7:13-14) Son of Man is not a term for a mere human, such as Ezekiel, but of a Divine Being:
…with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Kevin’s view is, “the term sons of God in Genesis 6 would be developing the Fatherliness of God” just like the term son of man develops.
His view is that, “in Genesis…the term sons of God” should be viewed, “as referring to human beings.”
Kevin awkwardly argues, “As a biblical theological concept, the Fatherhood of God is almost exclusively used in relation to human beings who are patterned after The Son, Jesus Christ. In fact, what is lost and muted in the angelic view of Genesis 6 is the eternal Fatherhood of God for if God only became Father by creating angelic creatures He is not intrinsically a Father.”
Yet, he could just as easily complain, “As a biblical theological concept, the Fatherhood of God is almost exclusively used in relation to human beings who are patterned after The Son, Jesus Christ. In fact, what is lost and muted in the view that God created humans is the eternal Fatherhood of God for if God only became Father by creating humans He is not intrinsically a Father.”
Likewise for his argument, “Before creation He would have been unable to express love or enjoy fellowship and is thus dependent on creation to experience these things” which is an odd assertion, especially when he followed that with, “as three persons, eternally existing in perfect union, fellowship and love. Lacking nothing and completely satisfied in Himself. The Father, Son and Spirit create not out of need but to give and to share the love, fellowship, and goodness that exist with Himself” and on it goes: indeed, God did not create Angels nor humans (nor anyone/anything else) out of need, due to any sort of lacking, so I am unsure what Kevin’s point was—see my article The Original Trinitarian Metaethical Theory for Objective Morality.
He notes, “In the redemptive historical interpretation I am putting fourth, the sons of God in Genesis 6 are sinful men” but that is a late-comer of a view in terms of popularity: and no, that is not an argumentum ad populum since the reference is to personages ranging from anonymous apocryphal authors to Jude and Peter and from Rabbis to early church fathers, etc., so that they have a rightful say and it is not just a random show of hands.
I suppose we will have to wait to see if we are told anything more about these anonymous, “sinful men”—much less about who the, “daughters of men” were.
Kevin wrote, “The angelic view of Genesis 6 should be rejected because not only does it have no connection to the flow and development of this foundational revelation of who God is but also because it goes beyond having no connection to actually confusing and distracting from it.”
Well, sure, when such is asserted then such is asserted.
Yet, we might as well argue that Cherubim being stationed to guard the way into the Garden of Eden should be rejected, “because not only does it have no connection to the flow and development…” since that is the first mention of them by name/title (Genesis 3:24).
Thus, regardless of the Angel view or human view: the point is that sons of God did something of their own accord, correlated to seeing and taking, and were judged.
Now, it is interesting that he asserted, “sons of God in Genesis 6 are sinful men” only to then write, “in the NT as the Son of God and all whom are united to Him by faith become like Him, sons and daughters of God. Sons of God in the NT can be defined as the eschatological, blessed, adopted, exiled sinners who have been brought into the eternal kingdom of God and made priests forever (Revelation 1:6)” which is not the case with, “sons of God in Genesis 6.”
Thus, he is forced to assert an out, “The promise of sonship in the NT is a promise of restoration and reversal.”
At this point, he, again, is forced to admit, even if vaguely, “It is Genesis 6 which first introduces the term sons of God and while there are occasions like in Job where it takes on an alternative meaning” yet, we recall that the alternative meaning was stated by him as, “the term sons of God is used in Job 1 in reference to angels”—to which we can add, at least, Job chaps 2 and 38.
We next come to Kevin’s answer to, “What is the great sin being committed by the sons of God in taking the daughters of men as wives?”
His reply includes, “The sons of God are beholding that which is seemingly forbidden” about which he generically notes, “We are inferring that the daughters of men are forbidden because of the allusion to Genesis.”
There are no allusion in/to Genesis that the daughters of men are forbidden since it is more of a case of that the sons of God, “sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
Yet, Kevin argues, “If the Sons of God in Genesis 6:2 are in fact, as we have argued, first born sons of Adam set apart for a priestly function, then the taking of the daughters of men fits nicely with the sins of the ‘holy seed’ and priests we see elsewhere throughout the historical narrative of God’s word.” Yet, how is that the case if, “the sons of God in Genesis 6 are sinful men”?
He is forced to admit, “The command to Israel as a whole not to take foreign wives comes in Deut 7:1-16, long after the events of Genesis 6…Moses is spoken against because of his foreign wife in Numbers 12:1.16.”
Kevin well noted that, “The issue of course is not one of genetic blood lines,” at least not post-flood.
Another, “long after the events of Genesis 6” text is, “1 Kings 11:1-3 illustrates that what is deemed a ‘foreign’ wife is one that is an outsider to the covenant and not devoted to the worship of Yahweh.”
So who were those wives of, “holy seed” who were, “sinful”? Well, he comes to that, “the term ‘daughters of men’ should be understood as idolatrous women, or non-God fearers.”
Well, if the sons of God were sinful then what would have been the problem with them marrying sinful women? It’s a match made in… well, h, e, double-hokey sticks.
Kevin does add (within a footnote), “there is no commandment recorded forbidding the taking of non-God fearing women…The commandment against foreign wives would come later to Israel. For the Israelites looking back on the Genesis account however we can assume” qualifying term, “that they would pick up on the danger and destruction caused by the practice.”
He then argues, “To insist that the issue taking place in Genesis 6 with the sons of God is one of corrupted DNA and the defiling of the genetic blood line is beyond problematic and presents a version of God where He is greatly concerned with racial purity at the expense of heart purity and righteousness.”
Well, that is a myopic false dichotomy since it can easily be said that, “God…is greatly concerned with racial purity” pre-flood, as well as, “heart purity and righteousness.”
Recall that Kevin referred to the sinful human sons of God as, “holy seed,” he went on to note, “The phrase ‘holy seed’ I have used thus far…comes from Ezra 9:3 where surprisingly It is used seemingly in reference only to the Levites…[who] have repeated the sins of their forefathers. A sin which I am arguing goes all the way back to Genesis 6 in the taking of the daughters of men.” Thus, holy-unholy holy-sinful seed.
He then answers the question, “Didn’t Peter Teach the Angelic View?”
Succinctly stated, “Peter’s argument here…offers little help in understanding much about the events surrounding the flood in Noah’s day.” The, “here” refers to what he specifies as 1 Peter 3:18-22, 4:2 and 5:10 (note that he bypassed chap 2 which mentions the sinful Angels) some key points of which are:
Christ…went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah…Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him…
…live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God…
…after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
Even bypassing chap 2, we get something about, “the spirits in prison” who, “did not obey” during, “the days of Noah” regarding the, “water” of the flood, with reference to, “angels, authorities, and powers” regarding, “human passions.”
Kevin notes, “What we can say is that there is fair argument to support the belief that the spirits in prison is a reference to nonhuman beings or fallen angels. The reason is based on the fact that the term ‘spirits’ is almost always used in the NT with clear reference to non-human beings.”
In case a discerning reader caught it, I had noted, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology.” Yet, even Kevin recognizes, “there is fair argument to support the belief that the spirits in prison is a reference to nonhuman beings or fallen angels.”
Yet, we do not outweigh every single physical description of Angels as physical beings by appealing to one single word to the contrary to the effect that they are spirits. This is when we apply what I also already noted, “every language allows for a term or phrase to be used in more then one way, to refer to different things, etc.” Thus, Peter’s reference to seemingly Angels as, “spirits” (πνεῦμα/pneuma) does not change what has been implied about their ontology in every other of the many references to them.
Interestingly, Kevin notes, “1 Corinthians 14:32 where ‘spirits’ is used in reference to the spirits of the” physical human, “prophets. Then also in Hebrews 12:23 with reference to perfected” physical human, “Saints.”
He emphasizes, “it is certainly possible that 1 Peter 3:19 is referring to nonhuman beings or demonic spirits the context of the passage itself allows for ‘spirits’ to fit either angelic or human beings.”
Kevin’s take-away is, “imprisoned spirits…more naturally understood as those humans judged in the flood.”
He notes, “It is also possible that Peter may have had 1 Enoch 1:9, 10:1-10 in mind. If so this only complicates the matter furthur as Jude 14 declares Enoch to be a preacher against false teachers, that is human beings” yet, the only thing Jude notes about Enoch is, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’”
So, it is a case of Jude preaching against false teachers and appealing to Enoch—who seems to have been paraphrasing Deut 33:2, “The Lord came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.”
He notes, “In any event, [in] Peter…There is no reference or allusion to the sons of God in Genesis 6, nor to the Nephilim” and yet, as I already noted, he is part of the reason we understand that Angels sinned a sin correlated to sexual sin and he is the one that puts that sin to pre-flood days.
Kevin does get into that section next from which I will quote key portions from chap 2:
God did not spare angels when they sinned…he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah…he brought a flood upon the world…turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes…rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct…
Thus, the chronology is: Angels’ sin, flood, Sodom and Gomorrah.
Kevin wrote, “The ordering of the three accounts suggests a chronology and thus separating the judgment in Noah’s time from an earlier judgment which took place against sinful angels.”
Well, that is a bit too succinct: when did Angels sin? It is a bit unclear but the timeline in Gen 6:1 is whenever it was that, “man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” which is safe to say was before Noah’s time. Also, Jude and Peter do not tell us the when of when the Angels were incarcerated but the flood, or prior to it, would be safe assumptions since the flood, at the latest, was when God was cleaning house, as it were.
Thus, there may have been a period of years, decades, or centuries between the sin and incarceration of Angels or it may have been hours or days: regardless, that sin dates to pre-flood days.
Now Kevin admits, “The angels being committed to chains and awaiting of judgment we see here in 2 Peter 2:4 do appear to describe the same imprisoned spirits of 1 Peter 3:19-20. It would not be unreasonable to conclude as such.”
And yet, he tends to attempt to get away from things he must admit by appealing to qualifying terms in terms of appealing to perhaps-maybe-possibly such as, in this case, “the 2 Peter 2 passage puts the timing of the judgment of the angelic beings before the time of Noah, possibly at the dawn of creation or prior to Genesis” (emphasis added for emphasis) which, as we just saw, it simply not the case: there is no indication of that.
In fact, he notes, “the prison terminology would be an accurate way to describe both the state of humans in Sheol awaiting judgment, and the condition of fallen angels it cannot be said emphatically that Peter was using such language to describe two separate conditions” and yet, of course he was because he specifies Tartarus.
Now, what is Tartarus? Well, we cannot conclude that it refers to Sheol which is a generic term for the grave where all humans went post-death. In the Bible, Tartarus is a hapax legomenon referring to that it is a word that only appears one time in the entire text of the whole Bible. Thus, we cannot appeal to other biblical usages for elucidation. We are left to assume that Peter was speaking to his Greek audience who would have know that as per Geek mythology, Tartarus is the styled lowest place of the Abyss where the really bad dudes go: such as Titans and fallen gods/Angels.
Kevin concludes, “the Petrine letters do not speak or allude to sons of God or the Nephilim” yet, they place the sin of Angels to pre-flood days which match the Gen 6 affair (as I term it).
We then come to Kevin’s reply to, “Who are the Nephilim really?”—about which I will note that they, “are” present tense, nothing so the question is who were they, past tense.
Here he falls into another false dichotomy, “two important details for interpretation. The first is that the Nephilim are the offspring of the marital and sexual union of the sons of God and daughters of men. Second, these Nephilim were men. And third they were not just any men but mighty warriors and men of (םשֵׁ) name that is reputation.” The horn-splitting third way is that they were offspring of those marital and sexual unions and were men, mighty warriors and men of name/reputation. FYI: biblically, humans, Angels, and Nephilim are all referred to as man/men.
Kevin seeks to buttress his point but actually weakens it since he added, “It should also be noted that the term mighty warrior is used immediately post flood (Genesis 10:8) to describe Nimrod who built the wicked tower of Babel as part of his expanding kingdom.” But this does not prove that Nimrod was a 100% human Nephil (nor was he a half-human half-Angel Nephil since they did not make it past the flood) and just shows that the term gibbor (גִּבּוֹר) is just a descriptive term: it is applied to Angels, Nephilim, humans such as some of David’s soldiers, Gideon, Boaz, and even to God Himself (Isa 9: El Gibbor).
Kevin adds, “the term warrior connotes war. Joshua 10:7, and Judges 11:1 both use the same word ‘warrior’ to describe humans characterized by their military accomplishments.” Sure, yet, gibbor means mighty not specifically, “mighty warrior” and Nephilim are never referred to as warriors (even if they were).
Now, having made various fallacious arguments along the way and now coupling them to a fallacious strictly linguistic argument—Nephilim were gibborim, Nimrod became a gibbor ergo, Nirmod was a Nephil—he can take Nephilim right past the flood since he has allowed himself to refer to anyone who was mighty post-flood as a Nephil—which would make us wonder why there is only one single verse post-flood that employs the term Nephilim.
His example is, “Nimrod who united all the world for the building of an abominable tower to heaven” even though there is no indication Nimrod had anything to do with that tower.
He then loops to, “admittedly Jude 6 speaks of angels who have forfeited their domain and authority and were thus put in chains” yet, he does not tell us what their sin was—not here nor when referring to Peter’s statements.
Again, there is only a one-time sin of Angels in the Bible so if the Gen 6 affair was not it then we do not know anything about it.
Just in case: some claim a pre-historical, pre-Adamic, pre-Earth’s creation sin of Angels in terms of a war in heaven but there is no indication of any such thing. The only such reference is Rev 12 wherein that war is a post-Jesus’ ascension event (likely after the incarcerated Angels are released, as per symbolism in Rev 9—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? book and or my book What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonoloy).
Kevin’s conclusion is, “The firstborn sons from Seth to Noah embodied the hope for bringing truth and redemption to mankind but by abandoning the faith of Able and choosing to unite themselves to pagan women they thus produced warlords.”
Apparently, there were no attractive post-Ableites and no attractive male Pagans since the bifurcation is strictly males on one side of the equation and strictly females on the other. Well, the Angel view makes sense of this since, again, Angels look like human males.
He then gets into that, “The physical stature of the Nephilim is not mentioned in Genesis. It would seem that the size and stature associated with the Nephilim came later on in time, which fits well with what you would expect from cultures formed by war and conquest. Battle tends to thin the weak out from the herd. The emphasis in the Genesis text is not on the stature of the Nephilim, but their power and reputation. Only centuries later In Numbers 13:32 do we see a description of the Nephilim that mentions their size.”
Indeed, so that brings us back to the issue of, “a race of gigantic human beings” which he could not have based on Gen 6, as he rightly just noted. And for those English readers who merely assume that since their English Bible has, “giants” in Gen 6:4, they can merely imagine to what that refers, tend to imagine some tall-tale, and apply that to the Bible well, remember the questions: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles? What is any given person’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
In English Bibles 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.
Kevin’s and the average personages’ usage is something un-specifically generic about vaguely being taller than the subjective average: which is as meaningless as it sounds—so, it is a best practice to ignore the term giants and just say what you mean.
So, do the usages agree: no.
Kevin concludes, “Goliath is surely a Nephilim but not because of his height and weight. He is such because he is a mighty man of war with a name” given his unique assertions about what is a Nephil. He added, “Surely no one would genuinely argue that Goliath is the result of some sexual union of human and angel” well, no he was not, in fact, he was a Repha (we are told that virtually every time he is mentioned: Kevn notes, “1 Chron 20:4-8 tells us that Goliath and his brother Lahmi were decedents of men. Namely their forefather Rapha” when comes the name of the tribe, Rephaim) but while the arguments are not genuine, as in cogent, pop-post-flood-Nephilologisist do assert that Goliath was either, “is the result of some sexual union of human and angel” or somehow (impossibly) from that lineage since pop-post-flood-Nephilology is just un-biblical sci-fi tall-tales that are sold to Christians.
He notes, “Even more bizarre would be the suggestion the somehow such a union would produce exceptionally large men of stature” for which there really is no indication—even when exceptionally and large are both vague, generic, and subjective terms.
Angels look like human males and human women look like human woman so given slight variations in height: there is no reason to think that Nephilim were any taller than the subjective average.
Kevin concludes, “The Nephilim are indeed a curse upon the earth but not because of some genetic tampering” but if that was the case then, again, why does the term Nephilim only appear in only one post-flood verse?
Oddly, he did not deal with that verse so I will make some comments about it, just in case and because I denied post-flood Nephilim but affirmed a post-flood reference to them.
Now, a reference is just that: a reference. I can refer to the first POTUS Washington right now but that does not mean that he is alive.
Num 13:33 typically reads, “there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
Num 13:33 is:
- one sentence
- typically quoted form a non-LXX version: since the LXX lacks a reference to Anakim in that verse
- from an evil report
- stated by unreliable guys
- whom God rebuked
- who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
And I could go on (and on and on) and did so in my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Nephilim did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—or by any other name or proposed ontology—since God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Kevin’s overall conclusion includes, “God’s elect priestly class” became corrupt which resulted in, “sending future generations further into pagan darkness” even though we actually do not have any indication that the daughters of men were Pagan idolaters or anything beyond the then run-of-the-mill mix of corrupted people—sans Noah and those in the ark with him.
Thus, overall, we saw Kevin arguing himself in a corner, having to admit he was cornered, having to literally make up ways to seem to himself to have turned away from the corners all whilst making odd arguments that ignored some key points and misrepresented some data points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply