Isaac Hunter, “a writer of supernatural suspense novels,” posted a podcast including many appreciated notes titled What are Nephilim?
He notes that it’s based on, “research I’m doing to finish off my dissertation for the Doctor of Theology program I recently completed.”
He seeks to elucidate, “peculiar references in the Bible made about Nephilim. What are these ‘beings?’ Where did they come from? Where did they go? Did the New Testament writers know about them? If so, what was their view? Are the Nephilim still among us even today?” and offers to, “jump in and see if we can cut through the controversy……” and provides a URL to, “The Whole Sorted Story” which leads to a YouTube page that states, “The playlist does not exist.”
He quotes the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, thusly:
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….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.
Since he opted for a modern English version that reads, “giants” he notes, “There were giants on the earth then (and after)” and, “The giants were the product…” and, “giants were known as ‘the mighty men of old, men of renown,” and, “Giants = nephilim (γίγαντες LXX),” and, “Giants occurs 3 times in the OT: Ge 6:2; Nu 13:33.”
Since he jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English one giants we have to attempt to figure out what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? What’s his usage? Do those two usages agree?
He told us, “Giants = nephilim” so he must be merely rendering (not even translating) the word Nephilim with the word giants without any other implications nor hidden assumptions.
As for, γίγαντες, that transliterates as gigantes and means earth-born—for more details, see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
I’m unsure to what he’s referring by, “Giants occurs 3 times in the OT” since it occurs a lot more than that. So, he’s either reading a very odd version (which he didn’t cite) or he’s unaware of that fact. In fact, the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that 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.
Interestingly, he noted, “you should always use multiple translations and a broad spectrum of study tools.”
He then includes a good section arguing in favor of the Angel view of the Gen 6 affair. 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.
He then notes, “two points of opposition to the angelic view of Genesis 6:2.”
One is, “1. Angels are spiritual beings and thus cannot procreate or even exist on the earthly plane…Paul makes it clear, angels have bodies (1 Co 15:40)…” indeed, 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.
The second is, “Jesus stated in Ma 22:30 and Mark 12:25 that angels are not able to procreate….the issue is, Jesus never said that angels ‘couldn’t’ procreate. He simply states they don’t. And, mind you, he says the angels in heaven: Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:24-25 ‘..in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.’”
Well said, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
He also notes, “Arguments Against Jude and Peter” about which I will succinctly note that 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.
So, if the Gen 6 affair wasn’t that sin the, pray tell, what was it?
As for, “what about these Nephilim?” he notes, “The Genesis 6:2, 4 account states everything we need to know about these creatures…They were giant compared to average sized men” but Gen 6 doesn’t even hint at any such thing at all.
He notes, “it stands to reason that these hybrid creatures were killed in Noah’s flood” indeed.
So then, “How did they show up in Numbers 13:33?”
He generically wrote, “This is the account when the spies were sent in to scout out the promised land and they returned with stories of giants that made them look like grasshoppers in comparison.”
Let’s add some key details, “This is the account when the” 10 of the 12, “spies were sent in to scout out the promised land and” the 10 unreliable ones, ,”returned with stories of” Nephilim, “that made them look like grasshoppers in comparison” which they stated within an, “evil report” for which they were rebuked by God—they’re report, which comes after the first, reliable, report, consists of five mere assertions and they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible: for more details, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
As per Isaac Hunter, the issue is, “if the nephilim were wiped out back in the flood, how is there yet still nephilim all these generations later?” and he offers 4 options but leaves out the biblical answer.
“1. There are ancient writings that say Noah was a nephilim or that his wife bore a child to one of the angels”: “ancient” is a subjective term since, sure, that’s ancient to us but it still comes from millennia after the Torah which is even more ancient still. That, “Noah was a Nephilim,” it’d actually be the singular Nephil, is logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. And that, “his wife bore a child to one of the angels” is equally folkloric, Bible contradicting, and theology proper damaging.
“2. There is another account that one of the nephilim survived the flood by riding on the outside of the ark.” There’s actually no such thing. He’s referring to another late-dated folkloric tall-tale from millennia after the Torah which is about Og, the Repha (not Nephil), which implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) since we’re told who survived the flood but Nephilim are never listed (and Rephaim didn’t even exist yet: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them).
“3. It has been assumed that what happened in Genesis 6:2, 4 (sexual relations between angels and humans) occurred again after the flood.” Any and all un-biblical post-flood Nephilim tall-tales throwing God and His Word under the bus by implying that He failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. There’s not only literally zero indication of any such thing but the sinful Angels (recall the one-time sin of Angels) were incarcerated (Jude and 2 Peter 2).
“4. Somehow their DNA were supernaturally preserved by Satan” which also contradicts the Bible five times and implies that Satan got one over on God which made the flood much of a waste.
The biblical answer is that the last of Nephilim drowned in the flood, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form, but centuries post-flood 10 unreliable guys made up a fantasy tall-tale about them: without that one sentence they stated there’d be not even a reason for inventing theology proper damaging fantasy tall-tales about post-flood Nephilim—without siding with guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them, post-flood Nephilologists literally have nothing on which to go.
Isaac Hunter actually wrote:
All we can be certain of is the Genesis 6:2, 4 account states emphatically, “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.”
1. Giants were on the earth immediately after this account, and also afterward. However they got around the judgment of the flood, they got around it.
2. Both the first instance and the second instance were the result of procreation between the “sons of God” and the daughters of men.
Note that he actually asserted, “Giants were on the earth immediately after this account, and also afterward…the judgment of the flood.”
Yet, Gen 6:4 doesn’t say a single word about, “the judgment of the flood”: the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.
And he asserted, “Giants were on the earth immediately after…the judgment of the flood” after having quoted where Gen 6:4 tells us to what days it’s referring, “those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them.”
When was that?
Well, Gen 6 begins by telling us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” (ESV) which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first began having children with each other.
Thus, let’s fix up his sentence, “Giants were on the earth immediately after this account, and also afterward of when man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” which is all pre-flood.
And note that he asserted, “they got around, they got around it” so the flood was much of a waste, etc.
As for, “Both…were the result of procreation between the ‘sons of God’ and the daughters of men” there’s literally zero indication of that—if for no other reason that procreation between the sons of God and the daughters of men doesn’t result in fantasy tall-tales.
Based on relying on one single sentence from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, Isaac Hunter asserts, “It is speculated that these hybrid creatures, not quite as divine as their fathers (the sons of God), and yet still radically different than their mothers” but 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.
Yet, since Angels are always described as looking like human males and human women look like human woman then since both sides of Nephilim parentage look like humans: why wouldn’t they?
He adds, “when they died in the flood…some have concluded that these disembodied spirits (what we would actually think of as ethereal beings) roam the earth as what the Bible describes as demons.”
Well, that does away with physical post-flood Nephilim and yet, that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
He notes, “Demons are not mentioned or referenced in the OT. They are not brought up until Jesus’ ministry” but he needs to search for OT terms such as shed/im, et al., which may appear as spirits in the version he’s using.
He seeks to critique the later-comer, “Sethite view” (which is based on myth and prejudice) by countering that, “Why would giants be produced from the procreation of a mortal man and mortal woman?” which is a terribly reply since it’s based on not agreeing with the English Bibles’ usage of giants.
Another counter is, “Where did demons come from?” which is more on point and yet, not a per his reliance on late-dated folklore.
And, “Who are the angels Jude and Peter speak of? If they are the angels who fell with Satan and are now demons, why did some of them get imprisoned while others are left roaming free on the earth as ethereal, unclean spirits?” indeed, Jude and 2 Peter 2 refers to the Angels and not only some of the Angels.
Isaac Hunter closes by referring us to, “Michael Heiser’s books and various academic articles” yet, 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
And:
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?
He ends with, “I’m much more interested in” issues such as, “Are angels an amalgam of distinct creative events (races of beings) or are they of one lot, with the same DNA and essense?…There cherubim and seriphim; will there also be humaphim added to the mix?”
By definition, as per the law of identity, Angels are Angels and if anything the, “amalgam” would be that they look like human males.
As for, “cherubim and seriphim” (typically Seraphim) they are two different categories of being.
Humans, Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim have certain things in common but it’s only Angels who produced half-Angel and half-human beings since they’re most like us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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