A certain Wally wrote the article What Are the Nephilim and Sons of God in the Bible? for what is otherwise a personal travel log titled The Not So Innocents Abroad.
We’re told of, “the Nephilim — those enigmatic giants” which raises these questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Wally’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
For some reason, it’s noted, “When the Bible says the Sons of God took any of the women they chose, there’s no indication that their consent was considered. Today, we’d call that rape.”
Yet, the reference to that they got married doesn’t necessarily imply forcefully so it seems that, “took” is being read into since the emphasis is that they did what they did due to that the women were attractive and not, apparently, ethical, Godly, etc.—then again, perhaps it was a case of rape and forceful marriage.
After repeating the rape interpretation, it’s noted:
This little detail turns the story from a mythical dalliance into something much darker. It’s not just about heavenly beings mingling with mortals; it’s about power dynamics and the exploitation of vulnerability. The sons of God are exercising a celestial privilege, and the daughters of men are on the receiving end of a cosmic power play.
Women wail, surrounded by Nephilim babies, with one woman with a baby growing out of her pregnant belly.
Some scholars argue that this part of the narrative reflects a broader theme of power imbalance — one that echoes through many ancient myths (including putting the blame on Eve in the Garden of Eden) and even into modern discussions about consent and authority.
These divine beings, with all their supernatural power, saw something they wanted and took it, consequences be damned.
That may very well have been the case and yet, we could argue that when any upper-class human weds a lower-class human the same could be said—if, that is, we were prejudice and generic about it all.
Regarding Nephilim, we’re told about, “physical might” but not why we should think so—especially when someone can be mighty but not physically so, not be physically imposing.
We’re then told, “One popular interpretation, especially in early Jewish thought, is that the sons of God were fallen angels.” The article previously referred to, “celestial beings…sons of God” who did, “leave their heavenly abode and mingle with the mortals.”
Indeed, 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.
We’re also told, “In Enoch, these sons of God were explicitly identified as angels who not only fathered the Nephilim but also taught humans all sorts of forbidden knowledge” even though 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
We’re taking giant leaps to what may be the usage of giants in that we’re then further told of Nephilim as, “part of a roster of monsters of the Bible.”
It then noted, “Genesis 6 reflects an ancient belief in a world teeming with divine beings who sometimes overstepped their bounds, argues Michael Heiser, in his book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.” Well, I’m unsure how two is, “teeming” (unless you count an unknown number of Angels individually—however that would work, even Rev 12’s refence to a third is a reference to a third of an unknown total) since we have the overstepping of one Cherub (Satan: Gen 3) and some Angels.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for 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’s then noted that the Angel/Divine Council view results in, “Nephilim as symbols of chaos, a divine error that needed correction — cue the Flood.”
We’re then shifted to a view according to which, “sons of God were actually members of a ruling class — mortal kings or warriors who, through their power and prestige, were seen as godlike.” What’s noteworthy about this less than satisfactory and historically virtually unknown option is that, “Nephilim were their offspring, not so much giants in the literal sense” but since we’ve not been told to what giants refers we can’t know to what, “giants in the literal sense” refers.
But I get the gist so I will answer the questions I posed above:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
It merely renders (doesn’t 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.
What’s Wally and Duke’s usage?
Something about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
The dirty little secret is that since we’ve 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.
Thus, as the article notes, “Nephilim have left a lasting mark on our imaginations” and 99% of what you get—out there in the innerwebs computer machine—is that sort of pop-Nephilology.
For example:
They’ve been linked to everything from the ancient Greek titans to the giant skeletons that pop up in dubious archaeological reports. In modern times, the Nephilim have marched their way into modern fiction…these ancient giants still loom large in our collective imagination. They’ve even been co-opted by fringe theories and conspiracy buffs, who see in the Nephilim evidence of ancient alien visitations or secret histories suppressed by mainstream scholars.
Indeed, ever since the impossible post-flood Num 13:33 evil report tall-tale about seeing them by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked, pop-Nephilology has become a cottage industry, and quite a lucrative one in our day and age.
It’s tragic but modern pop-Nephilology is where the most embarrassingly ridiculous wild conspiracy theories that should die find a new home by being thrown in a blender and are mixed in till they leaven the whole lump.
The article ends asking and answering this question, “So, what are we left with? A tale of divine beings who might — or might not — have fathered a race of giants, a story that straddles the line between history and myth.”
Well, the reliable biblical story is quite simple: Nephilim were pre-flood half-human/half-Angels who were mighty and renown (by a corrupt culture) and didn’t make it past the flood—oh, and then centuries post-flood those guys made up a fantasy story about seeing them and it didn’t end up well for them.
Yet, that’s much too boring so ever since, Nephilim have become the stuff of folklore, myth, legend, sci-fi, etc., etc., etc.—see my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
Overall, despite lacking some specificity at times and being a bit unspecific, this was not a bad intro-style article.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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