The following discussion took place in the comments section of the video VFTB 5/5/24: The Genesis 6 Conspiracy Part 2 Gilbert House which is a platforming of Gary Wayne by Derek Gilbert. I don’t say interview since such is what pop-Nephilologists do: they only appear on platforms meant for them to make whatever assertions they want in a 100% un-challenged manner.
Well, the exception to this was when Wayne debated me.
This was also a PR marketing infomercial since, as the vid’s info section notes, “Gary Wayne joins us to discuss” Gary’s, “well-researched and detailed sequel to his best-selling book.”
It’s also noted, “the second book delves deeper into the biblical basis for understanding giants and their role in the post-Flood world. We also touch on the Jesuits, the battles of Israel against giants, and the significance of the terms Nephilim, Rephaim, and Gibborim in biblical context.”
Now, one issue is what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Gary’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Well, his usage is something uselessly generically vague about unspecified subjectively unusual height.
In those English Bibles that employ it, 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.
Thus, no, Gary’s misusage does not agree with the English Bible’s usage.
Thus, giants in the post-flood world were Rephaim—and they were merely subjectively “tall” on average (Deut 2): and note that, “tall” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as “giants.”
The mention of Jesuits is due to that Gary’s pastime is to throw as many conspiracy theories as he can get his hands on into a blender, turns it on, the peppers Bible sounding stuff into the chaotic mix—the info section also noted “the connection between Genesis 6 and secret societies.”
As for, “Nephilim, Rephaim, and Gibborim” well, it’s very simple—if, that is, you’re interested in biblical facts—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, there’s zero correlation between them, and gibborim is merely a descriptive term that refers to might/mighty.
What started the discussion was that my comment was:
Two guys who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians. After DECADES of asserting Nephilim were “giants” (by which Gary means very, very, very big—which isn’t the English Bible’s usage of that term) it just took me asking him one little question, during our debate, to get him to admitting he doesn’t know how big they were, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.)—and then, he went on to say he’ll keep asserting they were “giants.” What sense does it make to refer to the height of someone who’s height you don’t know?
Derek Gilbert, commenting as per the channel’s name Gilbert House, replied:
Dr. Michael Heiser argued convincingly that the word “Nephilim” is an Aramaic loan word (“naphilya”, meaning “giant”). So, yes, even though we don’t know how tall the Nephilim were (and claiming otherwise would be unbiblical), calling them “giants” is consistent with both the etymology of their name and how they were understood by Jews of the Second Temple Period and the early church.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
But “meaning ‘giant’” only begs the question: what does “giants” mean and actually, more to the point, what, contextually, is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
Derek Gilbert:
Why did the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint 2,200+ years ago render “Nephilim” as “gigantes”? And why is it unbiblical to use that same word when we discuss the Nephilim?
Ken Ammi
Appreciate the continued interaction, friend.
You didn’t answer the question.
I’ll back up first to, “Dr. Michael Heiser argued convincingly that the word ‘Nephilim’ is an Aramaic loan word (‘naphilya’, meaning ‘giant’)” since, again, “‘meaning ‘giant” only begs the question: what does ‘giants’ mean and actually, more to the point, what, contextually, is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ in English Bibles?”
Fortunately, Heiser answered to what he was referring, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet)” which is fair enough.
Now, the usage in the English Bible’s that employ the term “giants” is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Now, the linguistics part becomes a styled battle of the scholars since, for example, the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”
As for, “Why did the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint 2,200+ years ago render ‘Nephilim’ as ‘gigantes’? And why is it unbiblical to use that same word when we discuss the Nephilim?”: well, you and Gary aren’t using that Greek word, you’re using the modern English word “giants.”
Yet, you’re being myopic since the LXX renders “Nephilim” and also “gibborim” and also “Rephaim” all as “gigantes” which merely means “earth-born.”
As for why they’d render three very different words with very different morphologies and very different meanings all with just one word: you’d have to ask them why they did that. Yet, it was a terrible idea and haunts us to this day with mere English readers chasing the word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible and connecting dots that don’t really connect.
Thus, Gary has literally no idea if Nephilim were even merely subjectively tall compared to the average but has made a living for DECADES asserting they were “giants” which is a word he misuses: his usage isn’t the English Bible’s usage.
Derek Gilbert:
As you had already called me out for sharing “un-biblical tall tales,” I assumed you already knew the answer to your question.
While the etymology of ‘gigantes’ was assumed in ancient times to mean “born from Earth” (i.e., “children of Ge [or Gaia]”), it’s clear from Hesiod that the Gigantes were believed to be of unusually great size.
Verses like Deut. 1:28, 2:10–21, and 9:2 connect the Anakim to the Rephaim, and in turn describe them as “greater and taller” than the Israelites. How great? How tall? Who knows? I don’t, and I’ve never said otherwise. The closest I’ve come is in writing about Goliath and citing Dr. Clyde Billington in sorting out the apparent contradiction between the Masoretic Text (six cubits and a span) and the Septuagint (four cubits and a span), concluding that Goliath was probably about eight feet tall.
But even then, I don’t believe he was a genetic descendant of the Nephilim. The Hebrew phrase ‘yelide ha-rapha,’ applied to other Philistine “giants” in 2 Samuel 21, means “devotee of the Rapha,” ‘yelide’ being a word that literally means “a member of a group into which one has been initiated or consecrated.”
We have never claimed, as some have, that the Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, Amorites, or any of the other giant clans of the Levant were “like the height of the cedars.” We haven’t even claimed that those tribes were literal genetic descendants of the Nephilim. The pre-Flood giants died and their genetic lines ended. Unless and until archaeologists find remains of unusual size that can be dated to Bronze or Iron Age Israel, we’ll stick to what we can corroborate with evidence.
That’s why our focus has been on the veneration of the Rephaim, which is documented in Canaanite texts. Descriptions of similar worship are found in the Old Testament from Leviticus through Jeremiah. The cult of the dead was well-known in the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean from before the time of Abraham into the Christian era, and the Israelites were drawn into it as well.
If you’re going to accuse Sharon and me of spreading “un-biblical tall tales,” be specific and back it up. It seems to me you’re picking nits.
Ken Ammi:
Appreciate the continued and detailed interaction—FYI: YT is currently shadow banning me so I only found that you replied by coming here and checking—oi vey!
It’s a word-concept fallacy and a category error to jump from “’gigantes’ was assumed in ancient times to mean ‘born from Earth’” to that in one usage the term was, “believed to be” mind you, “of unusually great size”—with “great” and “size” being vague, generic, multi-usage, and subjective terms (as is “giants”) so that’s a non-statement.
Such is why I asked the questions you didn’t answer which were about the, “usage” of terms. You jumped from meaning to one example of usage.
And none of that works anyhow since, for example, since the very same LXX renders “gibborim” as “gigantes” then we can’t just go by thus saith Hesiod since gibborm merely means might/mighty and since might/mighty is merely conceptual then it has no size—we can’t measure might with a tape measure.
Angels, Nephilim, mere humans, and God are all referred to as gibbor/im so you can’t merely assert Angels, Nephilim, mere humans, and God are all of whatever “of unusually great size” may mean.
Of course Anakim are connected to Rephaim: they were like a clan of a tribe: but there’s no connecting them to Nephilim—which you seem to affirm.
Yes, they, on average, were “taller” then than the Israelites: so what of it? I’m taller than my wife and kids and parents and grandparents and sister, etc. Ergo indeed, “How great? How tall? Who knows?” so it’s a non-issue argument from silence.
The Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
When you say “…‘rapha,’ applied to other Philistine ‘giants’” I hope you’re following the linguistics logic and realize that biblically contextually, that means, “…‘rapha,’ applied to other Philistine ‘Rephaim.’”
It’s a bit too generic to refer to, “veneration of the Rephaim” since that’s another linguistics issue:
It’s based on jumping from myopically cherry picking that the root rapha means dead/death: ignoring the wide range of meaning it has which includes healing/healer: which is why God is referred to as YHVH Rapha, there’s an apocryphal Angel named Raphael (God’s healer, healing God, etc.), etc.
Then reading ANE texts wherein when kings and heroes are recently deceased they’re referred to as kings and heroes but after they’ve been dead for some time, they’re referred as the parochial spelling of rapha/im, can be summoned for rituals, etc.
Then that gets applied to the 100% human tribe Rephaim (and so to Anakim by extension) but that’s not ontological, it’s just a linguistics trick.
Thus, “The cult of the dead” doesn’t turn human Rephaim into some sort of walking dead.
I was actually accusing Gary and you ;o)
Appreciate your affirmation in the “We have never claimed…” paragraph.
Yet, you have written, “Anak, his [Arba’s] son, had three distinguished descendants in the days of Moses and Joshua who were giants” which should read, “Rephaim” continued with, “Their names were Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai…the descendants of Anak, and other huge people…various branches of these Nephilim known as Emims and Anakims… monstrosities…We had the Emim, a race of gigantic stature…this race of giants” but you don’t know their size and, again, that should read, “Rephaim” followed with, “There are other passages not quoted which make mention of the Rephaim, which were another branch of the Nephilim…giants were known by various names such as Rephaim, from one Rapha, a notable one among them. Also Emim, Horim, Zamzummim and Avim, as well as Anakim…Nephilim…in tum produced offspring who were genetically-engineered supernatural and superhuman evil monsters.”
You did write, “various branches of these Nephilim known as Emims and Anakims…Rephaim, which were another branch of the Nephilim…”
So, if you have since then changed your mind that’s great: please say so now and show me where you posted a public notification that you no longer stand by and maybe have even edited, “Last Clash of the Titans.”
There’s no telling why someone stops replying in a discussion when they stop but I do find it interesting that when the rubber hit the road, when I quoted his own book, he no longer replied.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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