Giants in the Bible: A Comprehensive Study of the Nephilim and Their Descendants is the title of an article on the Unforsaken website.
Since it begins with
Giants are a fascinating and often mysterious part of biblical history, woven into the fabric of ancient texts and folklore around the world. In the Bible, the term Nephilim refers to the offspring of a union between divine beings and human women, described in Genesis 6. These giants and their descendants played significant roles in various biblical narratives and seem to be linked with specific people groups known for their formidable stature and strength.
I will note upfront that the author jumped from the modern generically subjective English word Giants to the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim so, the key questions are: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the author’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
At this point, we’re given indication that the author’s usage has something to do with Nephilim but how so? Apparently, something unspecific to do with, “formidable stature”—which his just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants.
It’s pondered, “how their existence might have been one of the main catalysts for the Great Flood.”
We’re told:
The earliest reference to giants in the Bible appears in Genesis 6:1-4:
“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’ There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4, NKJV)
I will cut to the chase of one issue by noting that 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.
A subsection is titled, “Nephilim as Giants” which notes, “Nephilim and their portrayal as giants. In Numbers 13:33, the Israelite spies report: ‘There we saw the giants (Nephilim)—the descendants of Anak came from the giants; and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight’’ (Numbers 13:33, NKJV).”
If we’re (for whatever reason) thinking of Nephilim in terms of giants and giants in terms of Nephilim then we saw the usage of that modern English word in Gen 6 of the NKJV but without a description and then in Num 13:33 with a description.
Yet, what the author did is to generalize the narrative of Num 13 not only by merely quoting one single verse and not interacting with the narrative but by misrepresenting it.
That was not stated by, “the Israelite spies report” in general. Rather, there were 12 of them and 2 reports.
The first, original, report was accepted as is (and didn’t mention Nephilim amongst the many people groups that were seen) but the, without informing the readers, author is exclusively relying on:
1. one single sentence.
2. from a non-LXX version: since the LXX doesn’t mention Anakim in that verse.
3. of an unreliable, “evil report”—which is a fact the author didn’t quote.
4. by 10 unreliable guys.
5. whom God rebuked.
6. who just made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale.
See my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, Gen 6 didn’t provide up a physical description and it’s the only reliable record so, 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, when the author concludes, “This verse clearly equates the Nephilim with beings of immense size…not merely tall individuals, but truly colossal figures, reinforcing the interpretation of Nephilim as giants” we know that’s based on merely uncritically picking up one single version of one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable report by 10 unreliable guys and is therefore, instantly discredited.
The author also has to tell us how it is that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste and just how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
Another subsection is, “The Famous Giants in the Bible” the first of which is Goliath but that shows the problems with chasing a modern English word around a Hebrew Bible since Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil: we’re told that about him virtually every single time he’s mentioned.
The author notes, “Goliath is introduced in 1 Samuel 17. He was a champion” which is the impressive point of the record, “described as being ‘six cubits and a span’ tall, which translates to approximately nine feet and nine inches.”
Well, that’s myopic since it’s, “described as” such in the version that the author is reading since what wasn’t told to the readers is that 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.
Yet, the author notes:
Goliath’s armor is…a bronze helmet and a coat of mail that weighed about 5,000 shekels of bronze, which is approximately 125 pounds (57 kilograms). His legs were protected by bronze greaves, and he carried a bronze javelin slung across his back. The shaft of his spear was as thick as a weaver’s beam, and the iron spearhead itself weighed 600 shekels, or about 15 pounds (7 kilograms).
Yet, what wasn’t noted is that he had a guy assisting with the equipment. Regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.
The next non-Nephilim listed as, “The Famous Giants in the Bible” is a guy for whom we’ve no physical description: King Og of Bashan so why list him when he’s not a Nephil, he was another Repha (again, which is something we’re constantly told about him) and we don’t know his height? Well, Deuteronomy 3:11 is quoted thusly, “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants” which the author doesn’t seem to know means, “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim” since, in this case, that’s the English word behind this usage of, “giants.”
Also, “‘his bedstead was an iron bedstead’…approximately thirteen feet long and six feet wide, indicating his massive size.”
Yet, the author didn’t tell the readers that it’s a non-sequitur based on many mere assumptions to jump to that conclusion. Nor was it mentioned that the bedstead wasn’t something upon which Og slept but was a ritual object—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Another subsection is, “Tribes and People Groups of Giants” and I might as well answer the key questions at this point:
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 the author’s usage?
Something about un-specifically generically vague about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
The subsection notes, “Several tribes and people groups in the Bible are associated with giants” such as:
The Anakim: The Anakim were a race of giants known for their intimidating stature. Numbers 13:33 records the report of the Israelite spies: “There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” The Anakim were significant adversaries in the conquest of Canaan.
Note the exclusive reliance upon that one sentence, again, and the fact that note even Num 13:33 directly tells us anything about Anakim height since it was, “giants (Nephilim)—the descendants of Anak came from the giants; and we were like grasshoppers” so it’s about the fantasy non-existent Nephilim’s imaginary height: and noted that before the quote was, “giants (Nephilim)” but now only, “giants.”
But as for, “Anakim were a race of giants known for their intimidating stature” well, the only contextually relevant thing we’re told about them is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
And, again, it wasn’t, “the” singular, “report of the” in general, “Israelite spies.”
Next up are the Rephaim:
Rephaim were considered giants. Deuteronomy 2:10-11 states: “The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim.” The Rephaim appear to have been spread across different regions and were known by various names.
The author doesn’t realize that biblically contextually, “Rephaim were considered giants” means, “Rephaim were considered Rephaim” which is redundantly circular but the author is mistakenly thinking in terms of, “Rephaim were considered being vaguely, generically, subjectively taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.”
Note the citation of Deut 2 which I just cited regarding Anakim—stand by.
Next up are Zamzummim:
Deuteronomy 2:20-21 says: “That was also regarded as a land of giants; giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim.”
Indeed, “Rephaim appear to have been spread across different regions and were known by various names” since Zamzummim was just an aka for Rephaim and Anakim and Emmim were like clans of that tribe.
Moreover, “The Philistine Giants: Beyond Goliath, 2 Samuel 21:15-22 mentions battles between David’s warriors and other giants from Gath, showing that the Philistines harbored more than one giant in their midst.”
Biblically contextually, this reads as, “The Philistine Rephaim: Beyond Goliath, 2 Samuel 21:15-22 mentions battles between David’s warriors and other Rephaim from Gath, showing that the Philistines harbored more than one Rephaim in their midst.”
So, let’s review all of these giants:
Nephilim: no reliable physical description.
Rephaim/Zamzummim/Anakim/Emmim to include Goliath and Og: taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.
So, where are all of the giants of, “formidable stature…massive size…intimidating stature”?
Since the article is based on a fallacious usage of the term giants one can chase it beyond the Bibel and asset, “The Global Presence of Giants in Ancient Cultures” such as any and every story about whatever, “immense size” means.
Another subsection is titled, “Nimrod: A Mighty Man or a Giant?” and notes:
Nimrod, described in Genesis 10:8-9 as “a mighty hunter before the Lord,” has intrigued scholars for generations. Some have speculated that the term “mighty man” aligns with the language used for the Nephilim and their descendants, suggesting that Nimrod could have been part of this legacy…However, while there is no direct biblical evidence stating that Nimrod was a giant, the association with the term “mighty man” warrants consideration.
That was rather odd since it warrants consideration but wasn’t considered but left as an unexplored open question based on unnamed, unquoted and uncited, “Some have speculated.”
Bottom line: the mere term mighty man does not result in that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and doesn’t tell us how He failed in terms of the loophole He missed so the flood was much of a waste.
That term is gibbor which is applied to Angels and Nephilim, sure, but also to Giddeon, some of David’s soldiers, Boaz and even God (facts that pop-Nephilologists will never bother telling you) so it’s a literal non-issue.
We now come to a point on which I’ve touched a few times which is the issue of what a subsection has as, “Giants and the Reason for the Flood” which, this time around, biblically contextually is really, “Nephilim and the Reason for the Flood.”
It’s noted:
The introduction of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 is immediately followed by God’s decision to bring the Great Flood…
The presence of the Nephilim, described as “mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4), is often linked to this corruption… These unions likely resulted in the corruption of the human gene pool…
Noah found favor in God’s eyes and why he and his family were chosen to survive the Flood…
…the presence of the Nephilim—played a significant role in necessitating the divine reset of the Flood. It was both an act of judgment and an act of preservation, ensuring that humanity could continue through Noah’s righteous and uncorrupted line.
Oddly, that section ends then and there without any elucidation of how it is that, if that is the case, there would be post-flood Nephilim which, by definition, would defeat God’s purposes, defeat God’s judgment, defeat the flood as being meant to preserve untainted generics, etc., etc., etc.
The next subsection is, “Giants in the Conquest of Canaan” and notes, “The conquest of Canaan involved battles with various tribes of giants” so, again, we have to do what the author ought to have done for the readers: biblically contextually, “various tribes of giants” means, “various tribes of Rephaim,” et al., actually sans Nephilim.
We’re told:
Joshua 11:21-22 notes: “And at that time Joshua came and cut off the Anakim…”…remnants of these giants continued to exist in regions like Gath, where Goliath later emerged.
Again, Rephaim,” et al., actually sans Nephilim and pertaining to personages who were, on average, taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.
That section contained nothing else so it actually ignored, “the descendants of Anak…Amalekites…Hittites…Jebusites…Amorites…And the Canaanites” who are mentioned in the reliable report in Num 13.
So, what has happened is that the reliable report in Num 13 has been completely ignored and the evil report has been fixated upon, actually believed, and has been (mis) applied—and turned into a worldview and hermeneutic.
The next subsection is, “Characteristics and Traits of Giants” which notes:
The biblical accounts of giants describe them as exceptionally large…Their physical descriptions imply a scale that dwarfed ordinary humans, as in the case of Goliath and Og…
But the one and only indication of any such thing is, you know it, that one unreliable sentence from an unreliable report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked—I mean, were we have reference again to Og as, “exceptionally large” since he’s of such, “physical descriptions” even though we’ve no physical description of him and with the greater context only telling us that he may have been taller than 5.0-5.3 ft. on average.
Jumping to subsection, “The Continuing Legacy of Giants” well, since we’re dealing with a vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage watered down concept then one can go from chasing a modern English word around a Hebrew Bible to chasing it anywhere it may be found such as, “folklore and archaeological curiosities…giant skeletons and ancient texts”: see my books, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and, The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
The, “Final Thoughts” include, “The giants of the Bible, from the Nephilim to Goliath and beyond, represent more than just tales of larger-than-life beings” but we’ve seen there’s literally zero indication of that—keeping in mind that larger is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and is likely being used metaphorically.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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