Judd H. Burton, Ph.D. in History-focus in history of religions, Early Christianity & Greco Roman religions, MA Anthropology & History, and a BA in History, wrote INTERVIEW WITH THE GIANT: Ethnohistorical Notes on the Nephilim. On and off, he references what he wrote as a paper and an essay and it seems to be a combination of various papers and essays that were combined.
Quite on point, Burton begins thusly:
“Giants? Like, people of large stature, or….?” queried a well-meaning colleague.
“Giants—like gigantic, sentient hominids” I replied. “Where’s the evidence?”
“All around us. Where would you like me to begin?”
That was a case of so close and yet, so far since the colleague asked a fundamental question that most Nephilologists do not ask and do not answer. And Burton half answers it since at least we know that he is referring to sentient hominids but to say, “Giants—like gigantic” begs the question since using a form of a word to define the word in question is circular.
I will couple the question with a question contextual to his biblical interests: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What is Burton’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Typically, Nephilologists do not answer such key questions and leave it to their readers to do the hard work of attempting to discern their usage at any given usage. Not answering such questions also, consciously or not, allows the Nephilologists to water down the term and use it to refer to various things, which is inconsistent.
This review’s focus will specifically be how he ties whatever he may mean by, “GIANT” to, “Nephilim.”
Due to being familiar with neo-pop-Nephilology, when he wrote, “Giants certainly do not fit neatly into the evolutionary scheme of human history…the very subject flies in the face of evolutionary biology and the accepted paradigm of human history” it is clear that his usage is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height at some unspecified level above the parochial average (yes, that is how useless most common parlance usages are). He may also mean that a traditional view of Nephilim as half-human and half-Angel hybrids also, “do not fit neatly into…flies in the face of” such a view of biological history.
Since he references, “physical evidence” it would appear that he is emphasizing the first inference.
CHAPTER 1
He begins by quoting that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly:
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”—Genesis 6:4
He defines, “ethnohistory: the reconstruction of a vanished or vanishing people’s history…we must treat mythology as ethnography and history, as accounts of culture, rather than mere fancy.”
And we get another hint as his usage, “giants. They are colossal” with both terms being vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage but the useless usage has been established.
We can now answer the third question, lest along the way he switches usages, since that does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that 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.
Judd Burton notes:
The Biblical narrative is generally one of the more prominent sources containing elements of gigantic culture. From Genesis chapter six, one learns that the race of giants, the Nephilim, is the product of sexual unions between rebellious angels known as the Grigori, or “Watchers.”
If you are wondering where, “From Genesis chapter six, one learns” of, “Grigori, or ‘Watchers’” well, he adds, “Textual evidence for the Grigori and Nephilim exists, but it is not contemporary and represents much later traditions” with much referring to millennia after the Torah since for, “Grigori, or ‘Watchers’” he is relying on 1 Enoch from mere centuries BC—that text is Bible contradicting folklore, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and also see my The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. Overall, within his 170 page texts, he references, quotes, and cites 1 Enoch 92 times (40 times more than he appeals to Genesis and 73 times more than Numbers).
He further notes, “They are the documents with which we have to work, however, and do provide necessary clues” and yet, “with which we have to work” toward what end? Historical accuracy or discerning the folklore du jour?
Surely, he would reply that it is both since the folklore du jour can inform our view of history—which is a questionable claim in itself.
Judd Burton notes, “Joe Taylor, curator of the Mount Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton, Texas has in his collection a replica of a hominid femur (whose morphology does not match non-human species) based on an actual find in southeastern Turkey.” He cites, “Joe Taylor, ‘Story Behind the Giant Human Femur Sculpture.”[1]
I posted a video clip of Taylor elucidating that despite making its rounds amongst pop-Nephilologists as a giant bone it is a sculpture that he based on being told about a newsletter he never saw that tells of what someone merely asserted that they were told.
It does not even qualify as a replica since there are degrees of (lack of) evidential separation between the sculpture and the claim of a newsletter that supposedly claims that someone alleges to have seen a bone—see, Is the giant (Nephilim) femur bone real? Mt. Blanco Museum’s Joe Taylor explains.[2]
Judd Burton notes that, “As noted, the field of ethnohistory will be increasingly important in the study of the Grigori and the Nephilim” and explains why he appealed to folklore from millennia after the Torah since, “Oral tradition, music, folklore, myth, ecology, art, and archaeology all contribute to the process of reconstructing a given ethnicity’s history.”
Judd Burton wrote:
1 Enoch is clear on the angelic nature of the Watchers, that they are the possessors of science, magic, and knowledge. Their offspring—created by the taboo union with human females—were the gigantic Nephilim, whose culture seems characterized more by dominance, oppression, and violence, rather than the exchange of knowledge.
And it would still be nice to get closer to what he is referring by, “gigantic Nephilim”—which biblically contextually means, “Nephilistic Nephilim.”
One problem with his usage of giants is the watering down effect since he notes that Nephilim, “legacies exist in the religious traditions of the Near East, in myth, in oral tradition, and indeed in the lore and myth of the entire world” and yet, that is a conclusion based on anything that contains references to giants as per his usage and secondarily, something about hybrids—and with the artificially flavored icing on the gigantic cake being something about giant hybrids.
One difficulty in reading backward in history/literature is referring to, “the culture of giants…In extrabiblical sources, such as The Book of Enoch, one can find the very work of transforming hunter- gatherers and proto-farmers into a more sophisticated society. The fallen angels waste no time in developing a scheme to influence man for their own ends.”
Yet, the chronology and cultural context is that either the Essenes or proto-Essenes who withdrew from sophisticated society would have been motivated to tell tall-tales about why such society is corrupt and so why withdrawing from it is a crucial ethos.
It is similar to why 1 Enoch pinpoints something that Gen 6 does not: precisely where the Angels fell when they touched down on Earth. That was Mt. Hermon which was revered by Pagans a few centuries BC so, why not besmirch it by concocting such a claim about it?
And, indeed, within a few more paragraphs and right on schedule, Judd Burton references, “my own work on the religions of the Mount Hermon region in Israel, I have taken several detours in order to work out certain historical problems. Many of these have led me to material on the Watchers and the Nephilim.”
He notes, “what follows is a collection of ethnohistorical sketches, which I have stitched together along a topical line.”
Importantly, he sought to, “serve as an introduction to the subject of the Nephilim for those who are unfamiliar with so mysterious a topic” so that such an intro must be as accurate and speculation free as possible.
CHAPTER 2
This chapter also begins with the Gen 6 affair:
Genesis 6:4 states “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days –and also afterwards– when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
The Nephilim were a race of giants that were produced by the sexual union of the sons of God (presumably fallen angels) and the daughters of men.
I am unsure whence he got the, “–” or why he employed them: perhaps we will find out.
Now, if you are wondering, besides his ongoing mere assertions, what would make us think that, “Nephilim were a race of giants” as per his (mis) usage then consider his follow-up—and keep in mind that biblically contextually, “Nephilim were a race of giants” means, “Nephilim were a race of Nephilim.”
Judd Burton added:
Translated from the Hebrew texts, “Nephilim” means “fallen ones,” at least this is one of the more popular translations. They were renowned for their strength, prowess, and a great capacity for sinfulness.
Despite the prevailing idea in academia, the above translation gives us no clue as to how the Nephilim are giants (as indicated in Numbers 13).
Apparently, when he makes statements such as, “Nephilim were a race of giants” he was not claiming that the word Nephilim means his usage of giants since, “‘Nephilim’ means ‘fallen ones.’” And he told us whence he got such an idea about Nephilim, “Nephilim are giants (as indicated in Numbers 13)” which is a hugely gigantic problem—stand by (on the shoulders of giants).
He told us, “‘Nephilim’ means ‘fallen ones’” and/but followed directly with, “Morphologically the Hebrew construct is similar to Aramaic analogs. In such framework, the word literally means ‘giants.’” Yet, that is question begging since if, “the word literally means ‘giants’” then, pray tell, what does giants mean? Well, we know that what he means is, “the word literally means something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height at some unspecified level above the parochial average.”
If, “‘Nephilim’ means ‘fallen ones’” and that is, “similar to Aramaic analogs” then how can the former mean fallen ones but the latter giants?
Without first looking, I knew to whom he would appeal and indeed, his citation is, “Michael S. Heiser, ‘The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy.”[3]
Yet, this is a style battle of the giant 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” (Private communique, July 2019).
Fortunatelly, Heiser defined his usage of giants, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet).”[4]
So, based on Heiser’s definition, Burton will have to admit that there are giants in the National Basketball Association and that would make all talk of giants a bit less excitingly mysterious.
Yet, he adds:
Further clarification occurs in the Sept[u]agint, the Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures. The Hellenized Jews knew the perfect Greek analog for the Nephilim of Genesis 6, in this case the word γίγαντες (gigantes), literally meaning “giants,” and who consequently had a divine parent and a human parent.
Ever wonder how and why so many very different words mean giants? In this case, it is simply not the case that, “γίγαντες (gigantes), literally meaning ‘giants’” since it means earth-born—and that he cannot really assert, “literally meaning ‘giants’” having never actually defined his usage (but leaving it to us to discern it).
He re-re-reiterates, “The Nephilim were gigantic in stature” evidence for which is yet to be elucidated.
Judd Burton next gets into linguistics—see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010:
The diverse kinds of these giants are cited in several passages. They are variously referred to as Emim, or “Terrors” (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10), Rephaim, or “Weakeners” or “Dead Ones” (2 Sam. 23:13; 1 Chron. 11:15), Gibborim, or “Giant Heroes” (Job 16:4), Zamzummim, or “Achievers” (Deut. 2:10), Anakim, or “Long-necked” (Deut. 2:10; Josh. 11:22, 14:15), and Awwim or “Devastators” and “Serpents.”
My experience has been that what he stated parenthetically is generally subjectively picked from a list of meaning options.
Now, based on the assertion, “Nephilim were gigantic” followed with, “diverse kinds of these giants” we can only conclude that he means, “diverse kinds of these Nephilim”—see the sort of work we readers have to do in order to make up for vague writing?
In any case, granting it, none of those citations even hint at a possibility that any of those were nor had anything whatsoever to do with Nephilim at all.
He also seems unaware that Emim, Rephaim, Zamzummim, and Anakim are a list of one, in essence, since what Deut 2 tells us is that Zamzummim and Emim are mere a.k.a.s for Rephaim and Anakim were like a clan of that tribe.
To assert, “Gibborim, or ‘Giant Heroes,’” especially given his misusage of giants is linguistically incoherent since its unfounded and myopic.
Firstly, Job 16:4 reads thusly, “I also could speak as you do, if you were in my place; I could join words together against you and shake my head at you” (ESV).
Secondly, gibborim is a generic term for might/mighty in general: it is applied to Nephilim (Genesis 6:4), Nimrod (Genesis 10:8), Angels (Psalm 103:20), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), some of King David’s soldiers (1 Chronicles 11:11), even God Himself (Isaiah 9:6), etc. And we have literally zero indication that Nephilim, Nimrod, Angels, Boaz, some of King David’s soldiers or God were Burton’s usage of giants.
Now, another case of so close and yet, so far is when he wrote:
Other giants are mentioned in these texts as well, such as Goliath (2 Sam. 21:19), a giant with twelve fingers and twelve toes who is mentioned as one of the Rephaim (2 Sam. 21:20), and a tall Egyptian (1 Chron. 11:23).
Again, what he claimed is that other vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height at some unspecified level above the parochial average are mentioned in these texts:
Goliath, about whom he went on to write that he was, “over nine feet tall [six cubits and a span].” For some odd reason, he did not mention that the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. (six cubits and a span).Yet, the earlier Septuagint/LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (four cubits and a span and that is compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that is the preponderance of the earliest data.
Due to how he writes, it is tricky to claim, “a giant with twelve fingers and twelve toes who is mentioned as one of the Rephaim” since biblically contextually, that reads as, “a Repha with twelve fingers and twelve toes who is mentioned as one of the Rephaim” which is redundantly circular.
Yet, he surely wrote his usage of giant due to that the text says, “a man of great stature” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and colossal.
Incidentally, that this one single Repha is the only person in the whole Bible to be described as having extra digits has illogically and ill-bio-logically led many Nephilologists to commit a category error by merely asserting that one Repha having such a feature means that extra digits was a Nephilim trait—see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
As for, “a tall Egyptian” he is the tallest specified person in the Bible at 7.5ft.
We then get to the aforementioned, “Nephilim are giants (as indicated in Numbers 13)” as Judd Burton wrote:
The passage of Numbers 13:26-33 recounts the Nephilim of Canaan that Joshua and the other Hebrew spies saw.
Furthermore, according to Judaic lore, a certain one of the Nephilim, Arba, built a city, Kiriath Arba, which was named for its builder and is now known as Hebron.
He misrepresented Num chap 13 since there is no indication that, “Joshua and the other Hebrew spies saw” them.
Rather, there are twelve spies in that chapter and two reports. An original report is stated and factually accepted as is. Then Caleb encourages the Israelites (with Joshua siding with him). Then the remaining 10 discourage. Then we are told that the 10 went on to present a דִּבָּה/dibâ/bad/evil report that consists of five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible.
The 10 were unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who were rebuked by God so there are many—textual, logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical—reasons to utterly reject their mere assertions—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
As for, “Judaic lore” well, that can refer to anything written within a timespan of a few centuries BC to the present day. Abra was Anak’s (after whom Anakim are named) dad and there is literally zero indication that there was or even could be any relation between him and Nephilim.
Jos 14:15, 15:13 notes, “Hebron formerly was Kiriath-arba. (Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim)….Kiriath-arba, that is, Hebron (Arba was the father of Anak)” and what Burton and/or Judaic lore did is to artificially insert, “a certain one of the Nephilim.”
Now, as an FYI, Burton writes so generically that he mixes and mashes together the Torah and folklore from millennia after it as if they carry the same level of authority and without making the distractions clear.
For example:
Genesis 6:5 alludes to the corruption that the Nephilim had caused amongst humans and themselves: “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become…”
Their evil rebellion had incurred both the wrath and grief of God. God instructed the angel Gabriel to ignite a civil war among the Nephilim. He also chose Enoch, a righteous man, to inform the fallen angels of the judgment pronounced on them and their children.
God did not allow the fallen angels any peace, for they could not lift their eyes to heaven and were later to be chained. The end of the antediluvian Nephilim came about in the war incited by Gabriel, in which the giants eventually reducing their numbers greatly.
Read Genesis 6:5 and it only states the quoted section, the supposed alludes to part is not in the least bit even hinted at being allusions. Again, he is getting that from 1 Enoch according to which, “The end of the antediluvian Nephilim came about in the war” and note that even within one sentence Burton jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern English one giants.
Note that his qualifier, “The end of the antediluvian Nephilim” is surely employed since based on one single unreliable verse from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, he merely asserts post-flood (post-war) Nephilim.
He added:
The Nephilim are known to have survived into historical times following the flood, given the above references in the Old Testament. They asserted their strength over humanity in pockets, and became great city-builders and tyrants.
Some giants became mercenaries, as in the case of Goliath. In general, the giants organized themselves into tribes and clans in order to preserve their culture and maintain their stance against whatever plan Yahweh might have for the Hebrews.
Giants such as Og…From the Levant the giants diffused into other parts of the globe, their numbers growing increasingly smaller with each migration.
Despite the loss of their physical bodies, there is reason to believe that the giants’ spirits continued to exist. In this state, they were (and are) demonic entities.
Like other sentient creatures, they have an eternal spirit at their essence. Therefore, the Nephilim and related tribes of giants never really ceased to exist, only their physicality was lost.
In order words, God sent a flood which was to be rid of them, et al., or a war to be rid of them but either way, God failed, He must have missed a loophole, and the flood/war was much of a waste since they just came right back to do it all again—fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
Actually, not even 1 Enoch has physical post-flood Nephilim at all, just like the Bible—Jubilees does, until the time of Noah’s grandsons, via someone finding a recipe for fresh, hot out of the oven, home-made Nephilim.
I am unsure why he is so vague about it, if, “Nephilim are known to have survived into historical times following the flood” why not tell us just how they got past the flood, past God?—and why not tell us known to have by whom and how so?
As for, “given the above references in the Old Testament” there are no such reliable, plural, references and only one, singular, unreliable sentence.
Recall that, “giants…Goliath” really means, “Repha just shy of 7ft.”
Likewise, “Giants such as Og” means, “Rephaim such as Og” and we do not have a physical description of him—as is typical writing in Nephilology circles, Burton touches upon a subject, moves on, circles back to touch upon it again, moves on, circles back, etc., so more will be said about Og to come.
Note also that when one merely asserts giant, colossal, etc., then one will be asked for current evidence which is why one will conveniently merely assert, “loss of their physical bodies” so that post-flood Nephilim were there and were giant, colossal but somehow, for some reason, are no more.
As for, “giants’ spirits continued to exist…demonic entities” not surprisingly, that is just folklore from millennia after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Thus, biblically, “Nephilim and related tribes of giants never really ceased to exist, only their physicality was lost” is to be accurately rewritten as, “Nephilim had no related tribes of whatever giants means and 100% really ceased to exist at the flood, and their physicality was lost since they were all dead—and likely ended up in sheol.”
CHAPTER 3
He notes:
Part of understanding children is understanding the parents. Genetic traits and inculturation manifest in the child and therefore, tell us something of the parent. The same may be said of the Nephilim and their parentage, and we learn a great deal about them by studying their parents, the Grigori, or “Watchers.”
By the last statement, we know we are about to get folklore. As for, “Genetic traits” that is a dangerous road which is a slippery slope particularly in pop-Nephilology. Succinctly stated, pop-Nephilologists merely assert things such as that Nephilim were giants, had extra digits, lived post-flood, etc. Thus, if they see someone who is subjectively unusually tall and/or suffers from a simple genetic mutations that results in building extra digits they can merely asset, “Nephilim!!!!”
And such is very dangerous since historically, asserting that some people are not fully human has led to humanitarian disasters—see the, “Nephil Kampf” chapter of my book 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.
Judd Burton then focuses on the 1 Enoch tall-tale about that, “Azazel was one of the chiefs—he was one of the original fallen angels” about which I will say, in short, that millennia after the Torah, someone took the word azazel/עֲזָאזֵל from the scapegoat in Lev chap 16 and turn it into a fantastical tale about a fallen Angel.
And while Judd Burton is aware, “Azazel is most often associated with goats, in particular, the scapegoat in Jewish atonement sacrifice” he wants it to be more, “The very name ‘Azazel’ reveals more about the nature of the god of the razor”—about which he wrote, “sword and sorcery, the god of the razor”—since, “Azazel is most often associated with goats…” and, “to Azazel, the scapegoat, for all sins.”
See, he quotes a particular version, “As the passage went ‘a goat for Azazel’” and so, “The connection between Azazel and the goat is further preserved in the Levitical tradition of Azazel” when what is being contextually told to us is a goat for being a scapegoat.
Note that in the midst of his very heavy reliance upon 1 Enoch he actually asserted, “Enoch himself records” with reference to that text. There is literally zero indication that the text is from any time prior to a few centuries BC, there is no indication prior to that of anything written by Enoch, and the Old Testament refers to 33 so called lost books but does not say a single word about anything by Enoch. Yet, he also wrote of, “The author of 1 Enoch” so it is another case of we readers having to discern to what he is referring with at given time.
CHAPTER 4
Succinctly stated, based on 1 Enoch about Watchers teaching occultism, “Quite frankly, the first witches were the mothers of the Nephilim, the giants.”
Granted, it may very well be that such Angels taught such things—even if we do not have such specific data such as what 1 Enoch claims about specifically which named Watcher taught what.
And the most hilarious moment in all pseudepigrapha is when that text has that texts’ version of God saying to the fallen Watchers, “You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and you knew worthless ones” (4Q530 Frag. 2).
CHAPTER 5
This chapter is titled, “VAMPIRE ZERO: ON THE ORIGINS AND PRETERNATURAL EPIDEMIOLOGY OF VAMPIRISM” and notes, “vampirism” was in:
…the antediluvian…the first vampires were giants, namely the Nephilim of Biblical tradition…monstrous Nephilim, gigantic creatures…The most familiar passage recounting the general wickedness of the Nephilim is surely Genesis chapter six…
But since there is clearly nothing useful in Gen 6:
The Book of Enoch, an apocalyptic text of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, provides additional details, and reveals the truly vampiric nature of the Nephilim. The key to their behavior is the consumption of what did not belong to them.
Barely out of the womb, they began to appropriate the produce of humankind. As the first slave masters, they drained humanity of its precious resources. However, the antediluvian world seems similar to our own in that its resources were not inexhaustible.
The Nephilim thus began to seek other means of sustenance. In their greed, the Nephilim turned against humans, and “devoured mankind,” developing a taste for human flesh and blood.
There defilement was not an end, however. We may rightly infer that factions developed amongst them as resources became scarcer, and humanity’s situation grimmer.
The Nephilim, true to their violent nature, fought each other and turned to cannibalism, feasting on one another’s flesh. The Book of Enoch states that they began to “devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood.”
And blood remains a part of the Nephilim’s story throughout their tenure on earth. When their bloodlust comes to the attention of the Archangels however, their time becomes short.
As with giants, we had to discern that his usage of, “VAMPIRE…VAMPIRISM” is, “consumption of what did not belong to them…appropriate…produce…slave masters…precious resources…devoured…taste for human flesh and blood…fought each…cannibalism.”
He goes on to refer to—1 Enoch’s version of—Nephilim as, “colossal blood suckers”—FYI: that text has them being 3,000 ells tall, which is MILES tall: great folklore, poor reality.
Now, previously, the claim was, “The end of the antediluvian Nephilim came about in the war” but now it is, “The Nephilim were sentenced to die in the deluge with which God would destroy the surface of the earth”—and yet, recall that Judd Burton also teaches physical post-flood Nephilim.
Having offered such an all-encompassing watered down definition of vampirism, he notes, “As the first carriers [of vampirism], the Nephilim had one angelic parent, and one human parent, thereby rendering the disease a composition whose elements would seem to be mutually exclusive.”
Of these Draculim, he notes, “God himself prohibited its consumption in Leviticus, which certainly adds to the cursed and corrupted nature of vampirism” which is only an aspect of how he defined it and besides, again, the only indication of blood drinking/consuming Nephilim if from folklore from millennia after the Torah.
He added, “Nephilim took blood that did not belong to them, in vampiric behavior, so the vampire exacts the same toll from its victim…We can conceivably extend the taking of blood to the draining of the life force, or life essence” so the blood is watered down to what some term psychic vampirism.
And then back to, “Nephilim were bent on draining humanity of its resources…eat their own kind and humans, and drink their blood, the literal draining of life force took place.”
He then wrote, “In world mythology, giants are often symbols of chaos. They are creatures made out of the most primordial of materials. The Nephilim of Genesis and 1 Enoch seem to fit into this niche as well” well, only when Angelic and human flesh can be categorized as, “most primordial of materials” which is rather odd.
He now circles to:
The word used for Nephilim in the Septuagint is “gigantes,” the genitive form of “gigas,” meaning “giant” and interestingly “born of the earth.”
God created the world out of the void— chaos, or the lack of order—and this would seem to be in keeping with ideas connecting giants and chaos. They exist in a type of anti-reality, or anti-logic, where morality either does not matter or is completely reversed.
Gigas is in reference to the Greek earth false goddess Gaia which is why gigantes refers to earth-born, as in born of Gaia and yet, he asserted, “‘gigas,’ meaning ‘giant.’”
I am quite unsure how, “God created the world out of the void— chaos, or the lack of order” and Nephilim not being born until, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” results in, “void— chaos, or the lack of order…chaos…anti-reality, or anti-logic,” etc.
Now, by the time he tells us, “The Assyrians and Babylonians…believed very strongly in the existence of vampires in general, and certainly in a gigantic species” we no longer know what it means to say, “vampires in general” since it can refer to so many things.
He actually uses vagaries to his advantage since it allows him to write:
Nephilitic affliction of vampirism is not altogether subject to the laws of physics…vampirism is, at its root, demonic…the ultimate cause stems from direct demonic influence. Furthermore, while the Nephilim were physically destroyed, their spirits persisted as demonic entities. We also have further evidence that there were additional unions between demons and human females to produce additional giants known by other names in the Old Testament, such as the Annakim and the Rephaim.
Thus, he jumped from an assertion about Nephilim that was apparently unknown until a few centuries BC along with an assertion about demons that was apparently unknown until a few centuries BC along with something for which there is literally zero indication whatsoever which is, “additional unions between demons and human females to produce…Annakim and the Rephaim.”
Firstly, the Gen 6 affair was not about, “demons and human females” but about sons of God/Angels/Watchers and human females: in fact, if Nephilim became demons, how were they the result of demons and humans in the first place? Thus, that is also an anachronistic error. He claims that demons created demons which implies a circular infinite regress since they would have had to pre-exist their own existence in order to create themselves.
For that assertion, he actually cited, “For Anakim see Deuteronomy 1-2, Joshua 11,14, 15; for Rephaim see Joshua 15, 2 Samuel 5, 1 Chronicles 11” and you can feel free to do so but you will waste your time since none of those texts, nor any biblical text, reliably has Rephaim or Rephaim-Anakim being the result of unions between demons, or Angels, and human females.
Yet, he later wrote, “Numbers 13: 32b-33 states: ‘All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.’”
For some reason, he never got around to telling us that he is relying on:
1. One single sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since the LXX does not even mention Anakim in that version’s version of that sentence)
3. Of an evil report
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
I could go on but, again, see my post, Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
So, in typical post-flood Nephilology fashion, he uncritically picked up one single un-contextual sentence without interacting with the narrative, ran with it, and applied it. It is a case of taking a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext.
It is also that which I term an expandio ad absurdum fallacy since he claimed that such was the case for all Rephaim so that he myopically quoted a non-LXX version of a tall-tale about the Anakim clan and arbitrarily expand it to all in the Rephaim tribe.
For some reason, Judd Burton added, “we know from 1 Enoch that the Watchers and Nephilim also did unspeakable things to the animal kingdom” but they are speakable since 1 Enoch 7:5 tells us that they, “began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish” within the context of, “consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood.” Thus, the unspeakable was eating: and it was a sin since that was pre-flood when God had not yet allowed the consumption of animals.
He then adds even more to what can be meant by vampirism which waters the blood down all the more:
…in 1 Enoch 15…giants…shall be called evil spirits…the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food…
Indeed, a very profile for vampires and vampirism is present in this passage…“afflict” and “oppress,” amongst other things…a description of the vampire “affliction”—a disease born of both natural and supernatural causes.
He concluded, “the vampire spirit…indwelling or influencing demon seeks after the precious life force, as it did while in physical form as the Nephilim” and yet, biblically, “the vampire spirit” if we need refer to it as such, “indwelling or influencing demon seeks after the precious life force, as it did while in physical form as the” fallen Angels.
CHAPTER 6
Interestingly, he notes that in, “The Bible…we have accounts of battles, cities” to include hand-to-hand combat and many pre-exodus people being told who lived in and around Cannan but there is not a single reliable word about Nephilim anywhere, ever—which was one of the points in my chapter sample post.
Attempt to keep up with this statement:
One of the most enigmatic aspects of the Bible is its mention of a race of giants and its various ethnic branches. The author of Genesis is the first to mention the giants—Nephilim…
God sent the deluge to utterly destroy them. While they were destroyed in the flood, the very spirits of the Nephilim seemed to have survived, for we find mention of them later in the Bible.
Another case of jumping from vague modern English to specific ancient Hebrew.
An assertion of, “ethnic branches” of which we have not been told of a single one—given his misuse of giants.
Now, “God sent the deluge to utterly destroy” Nephilim since, “they were destroyed in the flood” and only, “the very spirits of the Nephilim seemed to have survived” since, “we find mention of them later in the Bible” in one unreliable sentence which has them as physical beings, not spirits—go figure.
Yet, in order to argue in favor of post-flood non-physical Nephilim spirits who are physical, Judd Burton argues:
Indeed Genesis 6:4 says that “the Nephilim were on the earth in those days,” signifying the pre-flood world, and continues with a qualifying phrase “and also afterward,” with the connotation of after the flood.
One can infer that additional unions between fallen angels (demons, if you will) and women occurred, and that the giants themselves mated and produced these tribes of their kind.
The Bible keeps an ethnological record of giant groups encountered by the Patriarchs and the later Hebrews.
Though the conquest of Canaan was a military operation, authors nonetheless relate considerable cultural information on the giants, who were apparently wide-spread in the Levant at the time.
Note that while Gen 6:4 is within the chronological context of the pre-flood times, there is no indication of, “‘in those days,’ signifying the pre-flood world” and especially not, “‘afterward,’ with the connotation of after the flood” since that is a fallacious framing.
Granted, it is very easy to assert that if one first cuts that verse in half and then artificially inserts assertions into it.
Yet, it cannot mean anything about the flood since:
1) the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later so he is reading ahead and is then looping back to 13 vss. earlier.
2) the only post-flood reference to Nephilim is from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so he is reading ahead to Num chap 13 and is then looping back two whole books.
3) God did not fail, He did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc.
Gen 6:4 states:
Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us when it was:
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, they began doing it then and they continued to do it but that is all pre-flood.
Thus, his was a faulty inference based on fallacious hermeneutics.
Now, as for—and note the move to the vague modern word—“giant groups” he wrote:
They are the Nephilim, the Anakim, the Rephaim, the Emim, the Gibborim, the Zamzummim, and the Awwim (though we know precious little of Awwim, or Avvites).
Wherever these peoples merit mention in canon and non-canonical scripture, they are cited with great awe and terror, and so we may conclude that these peoples were brutal and war-like.
The Nephilim appear to be the oldest established of these tribes, as evinced by Genesis 6:4 and its antediluvian provenience.
The passage suggests that a closely related group of giants, the Gibborim, existed then as well. There is some controversy regarding the Gibborim as a separate tribe of giants.
The name itself means “mighty ones,” and is often translated into Greek as “giants.” (gigantes).
To re-review: Rephaim were a.k.a. Zamzummim and a.k.a. Emmim and Anakim were like their clan.
There is literally zero correlation between Rephaim or Avvim and Nephilim.
Question: if, “we know precious little of Awwim, or Avvites” do we know they have any relation to Nephilim? If so, I would imagine that he would have quoted and cited that data yet, it does not exist.
Granted, “these peoples were brutal and war-like” but that does not necessitate any correlation to Nephilim—especially when there is literally zero reliable indication of it and the cost for that tall-tale is damaged theology proper.
He circled back to gibborim, this time qualifying, “controversy” and yet, the controversy is not, “regarding the Gibborim as a separate tribe of giants” but that such is a pure fantasy—unless, that is, he want to assert that Boaz, some of David’s soldiers, Giddeon, and God, mind you, were/are giants. He had a moment of clarity with, “The name itself means ‘mighty ones,’” thought it is not a name. And as for, “is often translated into Greek as ‘giants.’ (gigantes)” well, I would need to know to what often statistically refers, where abouts and by whom.
The issue is that, for some odd reason, the LXX translators/renderers rendered Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim all as gigantes which was a terrible idea: why render three very different word with very different morphologies and very different meanings with just one single word?
He then circles back, yet again, to, “The book of 1 Enoch also relates more details regarding the nature of the Nephilim…usurped humanity and squandered all its resources…turned on one another, and resorted to cannibalism,” etc., etc., etc.
It is also noted again that, “God judged their kind and destroyed them in a flood” or war, or whatever it is convenient to say at any given time and, “We do, however, have some Jewish traditions of one such giant surviving: Og. Og is a unique case, for he promised Noah that he would repent if he might be spared. He thusly clung to the ark in the flood.”
Indeed, we have a literally incoherent anachronistic category error based on folklore about Og from millennia after the Torah. Firstly, he was not born until centuries post-flood. Secondly, Rephaim, of whom he was one, did not exist until centuries post-flood. Thirdly, we are told five times who survived the flood but Og is not on any of those lists (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5). Fourthly, Noah would have not assisted in his surviving the flood. For more details, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Judd Burton notes:
The most prominent tribe of giants in the Biblical narrative is that of the Rephaim, and indeed, they seem to be the main race of giants…first mentioned in Genesis 14:5, as part of a coalition of giant tribes…
Rephaim translates as “the dead ones,” or “the weakeners,” which links their kind to the underworld, and also belies their ability to instill fear, though its vernacular usage demonstrates that in general, Rephaim meant “giant.”
Interestingly, according to Deuteronomy 2:10-11, the Repahim [sic.] seem to be one of the major tribes of which other groups or clans of giants, such as the Anakim and the Emim, are a part…
Do you see how circling works: a vague statement is made that creates problems and misinforms, then a few sobering details are added that the reader is hopefully discerning enough to compare and incorporate into what was previously asserted, then more, and more.
Accurate rewrite, “The most prominent tribe of Rephaim in the Biblical narrative is that of the Rephaim, and indeed, they seem to be the main race of Rephaim…first mentioned in Genesis 14:5, as part of a coalition of Rephaim tribes…” which, of course, reads repetitively redundantly.
As for, “Rephaim…links their kind to the underworld” is actually based on a myopic basic level linguistics error and Pagan mythology. The root word rapha ranges in meaning from dead to healing. Pagan mythology, such as in Ugaritic texts, have it that recently deceased kings and heroes were referred to as kings and heroes yet, after they had been dead for some time, they were called rpʾum (a version of rephaim) and could be summoned to attend rituals, etc.—see my post Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.[5]
The problem is that some myopically cherry pick one of the meanings of the root, apply Pagan mythology, and apply that to the 100% human Rephaim people group/tribe.
Now, how anything that he wrote concludes, “its vernacular usage demonstrates that in general, Rephaim meant ‘giant’” is certainly mysterious—and note, or so we are told, just how many very different words in different languages all mean giants.
And note the moment of clarity regarding, “Repahim seem to be one of the major tribes of which other groups or clans of giants, such as the Anakim and the Emim, are a part” which is a bit off but much more accurate than anything he has thus far said about them.
Judd Burton noted:
…exact measurements for Og’s size, or rather that of his bed, and as such, a general reference for the size of giants in that time: “His bed [or likely, sarcophagus] was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide [nine cubits by four cubits].
This seems like that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa (an obsessive desire to see giants and just making them up where they are nowhere to be found) since we have no physical description of Og (at least not until wild folklore from millennia after the Torah) so appeal is made to his bed.
Now, if it was a sarcophagus it is a simple fact that a sarcophagus is larger than the person it contains, by definition.
For example, King Tutankhamun’s sarcophagus is circa 9ft.x5ft.x6ft. but he was 5.6ft. A giant sarcophagus was found in Egypt and yet, it did not contain a giant but rather, it was made to hold three corpses.
Yet, indications are that the bed was not something upon which Og slept but was a ritual object—see my book about him for details.
At this point, he actually quotes some of what he initially needed to know and tell his readers, about Rephaim from Deut 2, “Rephaites, who used to live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites.”
He then circles back to, “a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot” which is the singular statement that he, for some odd reason, turns into, “They” plural, “appear” to him subjectively, “to have had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot.”
Judd Burton then circles back to:
The only direct reference to the Nephilim after Genesis is found in Numbers 13:33, and introduces another tribe of giants, the Anakim. This passage is an account of the twelve spies and their expedition into Canaan. Upon entering Canaan, the spies observe giants in their cities, amongst them the Nephilim.
As Numbers 13:32b-33 states: “All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
It is clear that they were of great stature and powerful. From the spies’ report, we can also conclude that the Nephilim were overlords and progenitors of not only the Anakim, but were also overlords of the people of the land, ruling from fortified cities.
As we have seen, such is his teaching of Num chap 13: there were 12 spies, they reported, the report is infallible. He has again failed to distinguish the 2 from the 10, the one report from the other, that he is relying on non-LXX versions, etc., etc., etc.
Anyone who writes in terms of, “Numbers 13: 32b-33 states” and follows with, “Therefore” is merely providing a citation without interacting with the narrative and is jumping to conclusions.
He added, “In the same passage, another of the tribes is mentioned in conjunction with the Nephilim” but there is only the one, the Anakim, and that is only as per non-LXX versions and besides, it is logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible.
Interestingly, for all of this talk of giants, he notes, “Anakim, which means ‘long-necked’” which seems to be a stretch since it seems to only refer to neck yet, let us grant it: perhaps oversized necks is what made them taller (Deut 2) than 5.0-5.3ft.
He continued, “the Hebrew spies conduct reconnaissance in Hebron, a city built by and named for the giant Arba according to Joshua 14:15 (‘Hebron used to be called Kiriath Arba after Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakites.’)…the spies learn of three prominent giants living in the city who are descendants of the giant forefather Anak.”
Again, biblically contextually, an accurate rewrite is, “the Hebrew spies conduct reconnaissance in Hebron, a city built by and named for the Repha Arba… Rephaim living in the city…”
Beyond the fact that the only report on which he relies is not supported by even one single other verse, he confidently merely asserts and concludes, “Therefore, we may conclude, as the text states, that the spies collected accurate data on the culture of the regional giants.”
Yet, since he loops in circles, we again have to hope that discerning readers are able to ignore what he has already told them multiple times and keep up with the new details that he peppers as he circles. I suspect that such is a result of what I noted up-front which was that his publication, “seems to be a combination of various papers and essays that were combined” and it would have been better to combine what he stated on any given subject into coherent sections/chapters rather than just basically dragging and dropping them into one text since it created a lot of extra work for the reader.
If cogently edited, his 170-page text could have been reduced to 50 pages—if even that.
For example, only now does he note:
It is significant that in the Numbers 13 passage, when the spies report back to Moses, they do indeed relay their intelligence, and when conferring the cultural data begin with the Anakim: “But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan.”
Another statement in this passage seems to hearken back to the bloodthirsty and violent nature of the giants in the pre-flood world: “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.” The giants therefore held true to their nature even in the post-flood world.
By failing to read the narrative for context, he blurred the lines by mashing two very, very different reports into one with the former quote coming from the first, reliable, factually accepted as is report and the latter coming from the second, unreliable, facts-free report. And by failing to distinguish them, he seems to not discern that the latter contradicts and embellishes the former.
Next, he notes, “The first chapter of Deuteronomy contains another account of the spies in Canaan” which is Moses’ relating that event, “It echoes the passage in Numbers, affirming that the giants were strong and built large, walled cities” which is utterly not the case since Moses did not write one single word about Nephilim: it seems he was too practical, he was concerned about real threats on the ground, like Anakim, but not some fear-mongering, scare-tactic, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” style of tall-tale.
Based on his fallacious notion of Anakim and his reliance on fantastical folklore from 1 Enoch, which does not even mention Anakim, Judd Burton unfortunately takes a turn into full blown pop-Nephilology neo-theo-sci-fi tall-tales.
He wrote, “One must keep in mind that the giants consumed a great amount of produce, according to their habits. Recall their greed in the pre-flood world, and their consumption of human society’s goods” which is about the folkloric version of Nephilim.
He then moves the goalpost (without realizing it since he actually relies on the unreliable):
The Anakim seemed to have resolved this issue, at least in part, thanks to a combination of sound agriculture and genetic engineering, no doubt knowledge inherited from their Watcher forebears.
Numbers 13:23 relates that when the twelve spies reach the Valley of Eshcol, near Beersheeba, they cut a cluster of grapes so large that it takes two of the spies to carry it on a pole.
The Anakim therefore seem to have been capable bonanza farmers, with the ability to sustain themselves, while surely enlisting the help of their human subjects.
Now, that is vague enough that the average reader may have missed it—since is it much ado about nothing at all—but especially since he began the text by offering, “Thanks to…L.A. Marzulli, Rob Skiba…Derek and Sharon Gilbert, Dante Fortson” and cites Patrick Heron, it is crystal clear that he is heavily relying on some of the top pop-Nephilologists who make/made a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.
Having written a whole chapter on this issue alone in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales, I know that he thinks that, “genetic engineering” resulted in, “a cluster of grapes so large” rather than reading for context and realizing that such was the case simply due to how bountiful the land was flowing with milk and honey.
Also, he just quoted the six people groups who were actually seen in the land so, why myopically obsess about the non-LXX’s version of Anakim? And if we can viably conclude genetic engineering based on one single statement about one single cluster then, pray tell, why are there no likewise statements about anything else such as, “pomegranates and figs” which, “they also brought” but were apparently not gigantic? One can only suppose that their GMO program was just getting off of the ground.
He then circles to, “Other giants certainly existed in the Biblical world…what we might call, lesser tribes, or clans, and they are generally associated with the Rephaim. The main reference for these giants is Genesis 14:5” which is just about Rephaim, “In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim.”
That leads to a circle within a circle regarding, “Zuzim, or Zamzummim…Emim,” etc.
He notes, “cultural traits of the tribes of giants” but time and again we have seen that such was made up by him via one modern English word that he misuses and unreliable folklore. And right on schedule, he follows that with, “From available texts, primarily the Old Testament, and the Book of Enoch…”
And on it goes with, “Nephilim were the first of these giants…Nephilim and Gibborim…races of giants…Rephaim…Og…giants…Rephaim…Anakim, Zumim, and the Emim.”
He then circles to, “giants…Nephilim and Gibborim…races of giants…Rephaim…Og…giants…Rephaim…Anakim, Zumim, and the Emim…were originally produced by the sexual union of angels and human females” which is exclusively accurate of Nephilim.
And he refers to, “Their…size” for which the reliable data is that some were subjectively taller than 5.0-5.3ft. And he circled to, “genetic expression in such creatures…morphological traits included extra digits on each hand and foot” for which he gave us one single example—and that was of one Repha. He also reiterated, “mating between demons and human females.”
On and on go the re-re-re-reiterations, “their high metabolism…cannibalism…drinking of blood…vampires…such giants as Og and Goliath…giants…giants…giant…giants…giant…giant…giant…giants…giants…Gibborim…Og, Goliath…giants” and that was from just a few paragraphs.
He ends up referring to that, “The religion of the giant was the cult of the self: in other words, they worshipped themselves” and decides that, “The pharaohs of Egypt…The Greeks…the Roman Imperial cult” were examples of such. Now, while there is literally zero indication that there were ever post-flood Nephilim, demons are the spirits of fallen Angels—again, see Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?—and so it could very well be that such influence is what inspires such cults—which would actually be something the Angels learned from Satan who’s original rebellion was to seek to usurp God (Isa 14 and Ezek 28).
Yet, Judd Burton’s un-biblical view is, “The Bible tells us that God sent a deluge to punish the giants and a humanity perverted by their influence. When they reemerge after the flood” and he still has not told us just how that happened—each post-flood Nephilologists just makes up a theology proper damaging un-biblical fantasy tall-tale about that or, they just ignore that utterly fundamental issue.
At this point, he asserts, “what has inaccurately been interpreted as ethnic cleansing on the part of Yahweh, God directs the conquest of Canaan under Joshua. The vast majority of cities and kingdoms the Israelites put the sword were giant-held.”
But while God told us many times why he commanded such things, He never said one single word about Nephilim nor Burton’s version of giants—I wrote a whole chapter just about that assertion in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology that is titled, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?”
CHAPTER 7
He notes, “giants, or as the Bible calls them, Nephilim” but that is linguistically anachronistic since Hebrew came first so it is a case of, “as the Bible calls them, Nephilim and millennia later they were called giants as per vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English based on the Greek for earth-born.”
He specifies of Nephilim, “Some of them, it would seem, even survived the great deluge” so we, at least, got a qualified it would seem way that God failed and indeed, it seemingly made the flood much of a waste—even if we still do not know what it was that God seemed to have missed. And yet, what Judd Burton has now done is that for his love of fantasy post-flood Nephilim he not only damages theology proper but has contradicted the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) via it would seem. One may wonder why God took the trouble to inspire the five times over recording of who survived the flood but five times over neglected to mention the most notable of the survivors: the Nephilim.
He circles back to, “…cropping up in later millennia under various other names, such as the Old Testament’s Rephaim and Anakim” for which he circles back to, “For Rephaim see Deuteronomy 3, Joshua 15, 2 Samuel 5, 1 Chronicles 11, 1 Chronicles 14; for Anakim see Deuteronomy 1, 2, and 9, Numbers 13, and Joshua 11” which, again, do not even hint at any such thing.
And, of course, he circles back to, “extrabiblical sources, such as The Book of Enoch.”
He asserts, “Nimrod, is often regarded as a giant, this notion owing to the Hebrew…traditions…Nimrod is also credited with having built the Tower of Babel.”
But, “Nimrod, is often regarded as a giant” by whom and why? Likewise with, “credited with having built the Tower of Babel” by whom and why?
What he has done is to muddy the linguistic flood waters.
Firstly, “Hebrew and indeed, Greek Septuagint traditions” can refer to anything written at any time with any level of reliability or lack thereof.
Secondly, he cited, “The word used in the Greek is ‘gigas’ (γίγας), which is the nominative form of this word, meaning ‘giant’” which we have already seen is a confused assertion—and recall that he, himself, already told us, “called giants as per vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English based on the Greek for earth-born.”
Thirdly, he seems unaware of already covered ground in terms of that Nimrod was regarded as a gibbor which is exactly what he is called in Gen 10 about how he was a regular guy who became a, “mighty hunter, before the LORD” (mind you—yet, pop-Nephilologists turn that into against the LORD) so it is just an issue of the LXX employing gigas for gibbor/mighty.
Circling back to Numbers, he again adds details that he ought to have provided many chapters ago, the first time he mentioned that book’s key chap 13, “the spies Moses sent into Canaan on the eve of its conquest were all terrified save Joshua and Caleb” so now, he has finally informed us that the 12 divided into 10 and 2. Yet, he still fails to interact with the narrative and mashes them all together, “They related that they were as ‘grasshoppers’ compared to these enormous men.”
He then circles to generic, “Jewish tradition” from an unknown time which, “tells us that one giant, Arba, built the great fortified city of Hebron” for that, he end-noted Joshua 14:15 but, of course, it states nothing about his misuse of giant, “Another giant, Og, who allegedly had survived the great flood” which we already saw is rife with fallacies—it reads, “Now the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath-arba. (Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim.) And the land had rest from war.”
He notes, “Moving away from the Near East leaves one with no fewer examples of giant-founded societies…German mythology relates to us that the walls of Asgard were built by a frost giant to separate the realm of the gods from that of the frost giants, known as Niflheim (which is phonetically similar to Nephilim).”
English readers may think that it is meaningful that—only when transliterated into English— Niflheim seems to look and sound like (“phonetically similar”) Nephilim yet, that is a form of a word-concept fallacy. And, in fact, Niflheim is not a word that refers to giants but to a location: a world or home of mist.
CHAPTER 8
Judd Burton then circles back to Nimrod. Now, having told us, in his round about manner, that he was a Nephil, he now tells us, “He is none other than the great grandson of Noah, whose son Ham was his grandfather. Hence, Nimrod is descended from distinguished pedigree insofar as Noah and his family survived the deluge.” It seems that the assertion is that Nimrod’s pedigree was distinguished in that it contained Nephilim. And yet, there is no indication of that and it would cause problems for, “insofar as Noah and his family survived the deluge” but Nephilim did not.
This leads him to circle back to, “he became a ‘mighty one’” and, in this case, provides the detail I had to mention the last time around, “in Hebrew ‘Gibbor.” And yet, he mentions it with an end goal in mind which is that the term, “is of great interest” in terms of, “a transformation he underwent” which, again, biblically was being a regular guy who became a gibbor hunter and became even more of a gibbor by founding what became empires.
Yet, to Judd Burton:
Two pieces of evidence seem to corroborate the notion that Nimrod was a Nephilim. One is the phrasing of Genesis 10:8 in the Septuagint. Nimrod is described has having “began to be a giant upon the earth.” The Greek word “gigas”—“giant”—is very plainly used in this verse.
Herein lies the beauty of the Septuagint and the Hellenized rabbis who transcribed it: they knew the exact Greek wording to convey specific Hebrew meanings and idioms to the larger Mediterranean and later Western audiences.
We know by now that he will mention that the key word means earth-born but it is not as conveniently useful to his tall-tale weaving as merely asserting that it means his usage of giant.
Again, we have no idea why, “the Hellenized rabbis who transcribed it” did something as odd as rendering three words with one word.
The second comes from a regionally proximate language, Aramaic. It has to do with Nimrod’s relation ship with Orion, upon which I will continue in later paragraphs. In ancient Aram, the constellation Orion was known to them as “Nephila,” suggesting that Orion was a Nephilim himself.
Recall that jumping to Aramaic will not assist him since, just as in Hebrew, it too refers to fall/fallen/feller/to cause to fall, etc.
Moreover, he asserts:
…“a mighty hunter before the Lord,” could also carry the connotation of “a Gibbor in rebellion before the Lord”…
What sort of GIbbor [sic.] he may have been is left open to the kinds of chimerical possibilities we know are allowed for the forms of Nephilim. It would seem that few could contest him, so it may have been that he was of great stature and strength in body, but also in mind.
Since we have no physical description of Nimrod and are not told how he wielded his might, we certainly have no data upon which to conclude, “few could contest him” since, “he was of great stature”: history is saturated with mighty men who founded immensely powerful empires but themselves ranged from average to puny in physical prowess.
As for, “chimerical possibilities” and the tall-tale about, “allowed for the forms of Nephilim” that is part of what happens when one relies on folklore and pop-Nephilology.
He adds, “If Nimrod had become a sort of Nephilim the logical conclusion is that he had gathered those like-minded persons—other Nephilim and kings—to his banner in an attempt to invade heaven” thus, that is a non issue since that is a big IF and, in fact, is an impossibility.
He then tells us, “The Book of Jasher is a veritable treasure trove of anthropological data on Nimrod” all of which is utterly irrelevant since the fact is that the text is just a modern day hoaxed fraud—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
He then goes beyond a modern fantasy story to an ancient one:
The Book of Giants from the Dead Sea Scrolls contains a fragmented account of an antediluvian giant named Gilgamesh…it would seem a strange placement for Nimrod, since it is before the flood. However, the spirit of Gilgamesh could easily have existed before the flood, and could have possessed Nimrod…Perhaps then, Nimrod and Gilgamesh are—as some have asserted—one and the same.
That it is, “The Book of Giants from the Dead Sea Scrolls” means that it is folklore from a few centuries BC—and I reviewed it as well in my book about Nephilim related apocrypha.
I am quite unsure how, “it would seem a strange placement for Nimrod, since it is before the flood” when he seemed enthusiastic about a pre-flood Og. His assertion seems to be that a dead Nephil named Gilgamesh could have possessed Nimrod which, as we have seen, is not a viable option. Yet, he opts for the view that, “Nimrod was obviously a man known by many names, many guises.”
Moreover:
On April 29, 2003, the BBC News announced in an article that the Tomb of Gilgamesh was now believed to have been discovered by a team of German archaeologists. The team had uncovered none other than the city of Uruk (Biblical Erech), and a tomb whose traits matched those ascribed to Gilgamesh in The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Is it coincidence that the American invasion of Iraq began a month earlier? I have since heard from sources which I am not currently at liberty to divulge—God-fearing people close to the operation—that the tomb was indeed Gilgamesh. Further, that Gilgamesh’ immense body was in “a remarkable state of preservation.”
Note the jump from, “believed to have been” and, “ascribed to” coupled with a conspiracy theory about, “the American invasion of Iraq” backed by unnamed, unquoted, and uncited, alleged, “God-fearing people…I believe my sources” so that settles it. So, they told him about, “Gilgamesh’ immense body.” The BBC report notes (I will add emphasis for emphasis):
Gilgamesh tomb believed found
Archaeologists in Iraq believe they may have found the lost tomb of King Gilgamesh…a German-led expedition has discovered what is thought to be the entire city of Uruk…”I don’t want to say definitely it was the grave of King Gilgamesh, but it looks very similar to that described in the epic,” Jorg Fassbinder, of the Bavarian department of Historical Monuments in Munich, told the BBC World Service’s Science in Action programme…[6]
Not a word about a body nor its size—I know, I know, I can hear it now: COVER UP!!!!
Based on essentially what anyone ever asserted about Nimrod, Judd Burton’s take away is:
Nimrod…was a great hunter, he rebelled against God, became a giant, instituted the first great kingdom of Asia, tried to usurp God, and set himself up as a god man among humanity.
However, evil and long-lived as he was, he was not invincible, as he died at the hands of the Hebrew Esau.
From these evidences we can see that Nimrod is a figure to be considered in the history of the Nephilim, and that ample anthropological data exist to assist that analysis. Usurper—rebel—giant—antichrist: this was Nimrod.
CHAPTER 9
This whole chapter is about Og and so we will just pick out the already merely asserted un-biblical tall-tales and see if he adds any new assertions:
Nephilim were builders of cities and rulers of great kingdoms. One giant in particular…is none other than Og…giant…Og’s story begins in the pre- flood world, after the fall of the angels. He was a member of the generations of giants prior to the flood. We know this from references to Og in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 3:11 states that “only Og was left of the remnant of the Rephaim.” This being the case, some or one of the Rephaim must have survived the flood, for the passage implies the continuance of a tribe of giants…As for the giant surviving the flood, there is a Jewish legend of Og weathering the deluge by clinging to the ark…As one of the antediluvian giants, Og’s father may very well have been a Watcher, a fallen angel.
Clearly, that is 100% pure un-biblical fantasy folkloric tall-tale telling.
We get another example of his modus operandi of quoting anything written by anyone at any time in any place of any genre, accepting it all as being of equal levels of authority, watering it all down, mashing it together, and assuring us that he is presenting us with facts.
He wrote, “Another possibility comes to us from the Book of Giants” again (and again) folklore form a few centuries BC (millennia after the Torah), “in which another Giant, Ogias, is depicted slaying a dragon. Ohia (Ogias) is also mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (Nida, Ch. 9)” from circa 500 AD (mind you), “which states ‘Sihon and Og were brothers, as they were the sons of Ohia [Ogias] the son of Semjaza (Semyaza)” who is a key fallen Angel/Watcher from the 1 Enoch folklore.
To him, this means, “Og would then be the grandson of Samjaza (as such, perhaps Azazel), and would have been of gigantic parentage” based on one single unreliable sentence, folklore, incoherent anachronism, etc., etc., etc.
Circling back to his first tall-tale, “Once judgment fell on the Nephilim, however, Og seemed remorseful, as did other giants.”
He circles back to, “In stature, Og was of great size, as the text of the Bible again demonstrates” which we know is not the case in the least bit as we do not have any such demonstration in the Bible (nor anywhere besides wild and wildly late-dated folklore).
He then jumps from Og’s, “bed” to that it really, “was most likely a megalithic sarcophagus” and this time, adds, “dolmens and megaliths” which I covered in my book about Og.
Lastly, he could not leave us with telling us, “the Bible and other texts of Jewish tradition, such as 1 Enoch, remain important repositories of information about Og and the giants.”
CHAPTER 10
This whole chapter is about Goliath and so we will just pick out the already merely asserted un-biblical tall-tales and see if he adds any new assertions.
He notes, “Goliath is typically the giant people most associate with the Biblical narrative” and reiterates, “I’ve already established Goliath as a Rephaim” but to him, that means Nephilim, by any other name so he is correct and incorrect at once.
Moreover, “he was a giant…Satan tried to use Goliath to literally kill off the bloodline of the messiah through David.”
CHAPTER 11
Again based on his fallacious usage of giants, he premises this chapter upon, “One of the enduring questions in giant research” which pertains to, “after David defeats the Rephaim Goliath, what happens to the giants of the Levant?”:
Obviously, there numbers are greatly reduced hereafter because the last mention of a giant [Repha] in the Biblical text is 2 Samuel 21, in which David and his men were killing off the last of the Philistine giants [Rephaim], in this case, brothers of Goliath and other inhabitants of Gath. There are no direct references hereafter in the Old Testament, but there are cultural phenomena that occur in the Mediterranean world which suggest where surviving giants [Rephaim] may have gone.
Judd Burton notes, “Clearly, some kind of diaspora occurred” which will serve as a springboard for him to chase his version of giants wherever he may find them—Gigorexia Nervosa at work.
Thus, he chases his version to, “the Celtic and Norse worlds…Mesopotamia into the Indian Ocean and the Pacific world”:
Our story begins in the middle of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan (anytime between c. 1400-1200 B.C.), which began with Joshua and continued into the period of the Judges. This ongoing campaign destroyed a substantial number of giants…[to] increase their chances of destroying the bloodline of the Messiah. After the defeat of Goliath and the other Rephaim…drop off the radar in the Near East…escaping giants…
CHAPTER 12
Judd Burton notes:
According to the Book of Enoch, the summit of Mt. Hermon was the location where the fallen angels first touched the earth upon their expulsion from heaven: “And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon”…
The products of these unions were the Nephilim, the giants mentioned in Genesis, and elsewhere in the Old Testament [one single unreliable sentence]…Nephilim, both before the flood and after the flood appear to be attempts to pollute the bloodline that would produce the messiah…plans of the Nephilim, for they reestablish themselves in Canaan, soon after the flood.
When the conquest occurs, the Hebrews must fight a substantial number of Nephilim and other giants in order to take the land, but the Hebrews nonetheless intermarry with Canaanites and presumably, humans of at least partial giant blood.
In other words, the giants of the Levant waged a eugenics war against the Hebrews, with hopes of perpetuating their own line and destroying—or at least diluting—that of messiah.
If we take such an un-biblical fantasy tall-tale seriously then we must conclude that God failed and Nephilim were successful in perpetuating their own line and destroying—or at least diluting—that of messiah since Jesus’ genealogy includes people who were from supposedly Nephilim and other giants.
He then circles back to, “Azazel, who is sometimes conflated with Semyaza, was a leader of the rebellious angels…most often associated with goats, in particular, the scapegoat in Jewish atonement sacrifice” as if an incarcerated Angel, as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, had anything to do with Jewish atonement sacrifice, “One goat was given to Yahweh and another to Azazel, the scapegoat for all sins” as if it was part of the Godly, priestly, sacrificial atonement system to offer sacrifices to a fallen Angel.
He then circles back to, “Og…of the Rephaites. His bed was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide” so he quoted that correctly and correctly commented, “Og is here described as one of the last of the Rephaim” after telling us, “Goliath, the last giant champion”—perhaps Og, the king, was not a chap.
Yet, he then mixes and mashes linguistics again, “Rephaim were a species of giants” and worse still, “descended from the pre-flood stock, who were renowned for their evil and great size” if great size refers to taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
Yet, he prefers, “reaching heights of up to fifteen feet according to Jewish lore and tradition” (emphasis added for emphasis) for which he cites The Book of Jubilees 29:9-11 which, just like 1 Enoch, is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.
Those vss. read:
But before they used to call the land of Gilead the land of the Rephaim; for it was the land of the Rephaim, and the Rephaim were born (there), giants whose height was ten, nine, eight down to seven cubits.
And their habitation was from the land of the children of Ammon to Mount Hermon, and the seats of their kingdom were Karnaim and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, and Misur, and Beon.
And the Lord destroyed them because of the evil of their deeds; for they were very malignant, and the Amorites dwelt in their stead, wicked and sinful, and there is no people to-day which has wrought to the full all their sins, and they have no longer length of life on the earth.
And The Zohar about which he tells us, “though a much later document” indeed, from the 1300 AD so circa five millennia after the Torah, “actually relates that ‘After the deluge the souls of the antediluvians incarnated in five different races or nations, viz., the Nephilim (fallen or degraded), Giborim (mighty ones), Anakim (tall ones), Rephaim (the giants), and Amalekim (Amalekites)” which is incoherent—not surprising as it is coming from the premier text of Rabbinic Judaism’s mysticism.
This time, he wrote, “If we are to believe that the Talmud is based on older oral traditions of the Jews, then Og, survived the flood by clinging to the ark” yet, this is when a styled ethnographer need to consult with a fact-checker since he would have been told, “Even if we are to believe that the Talmud is based on older oral traditions of the Jews, then there is still literally zero reliable, logical, bio-logical, theo-logical indication that Og, survived the flood by clinging to the ark since that is an incoherently anachronistic un-biblical fantasy tall-tale of a category error.”
CHAPTER 13
Judd Burton wrote, “The bulk of passages recounting the Nephilim are found in the Old Testament” referring to one reliable sentence and one unreliable sentence, “and Jewish Apocryphal literature” which is folklore from millennia after the Torah.
Oddly, he wrote, “If Jesus saw fit to mention the antediluvian world and the evil of the Watchers and Nephilim, and the New Testament authors and early Christian writers deemed the topic worthy of attention, perhaps we ought to as well.” Well, that is a big IFsince there is no indication that Jesus said anything about, “the evil of the Watchers and Nephilim.”
Yet, he thinks that Jesus did via linguistics machinations regarding where late-dated folklore asserts the fallen Angels touched down on Earth, that Mt. Hermon is in the region of Caesarea Philippi and so what Jesus did and said there must, or so we are told, have pertained to, “the evil of the Watchers and Nephilim.”
He also asserts, “Caesarea Philippi is at the foot of Mount Hermon…it was also in this region that the Nephilim first arose” yet, I am quite unsure how post-flood Caesarea Philippi and Mt. Hermon could be so very specifically associated with any pre-flood region.
He then turns to another favorite of pop-Nephilology propaganda:
…Jesus utters a statement… “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” At first glance this statement seems cryptic and ill-placed, however, it is far from being totally veiled. Jesus could have chosen any number of examples to demonstrate the surprise and shock humanity felt at the onset of God’s judgment…
However he selectetd [sic.] Noah’s era, and that means the antediluvian world. We have gleaned already that the world in Noah’s day was vile, that it had been turned to wickedness by the Watchers and the Nephilim. The Nephilim were indeed “upon the earth.” And so Jesus relates to us that when the world is coming to an end, the wickedness that marked the end of the antediluvian world would return, which includes both the Watchers and the Nephilim.
Jesus must have thought that it was important to frame the apocalyptic events within the context of the pre-flood world and its destruction, in order to prepare the believers who would be living at that time—it was one of the signs.
The apostles maintained belief in the Watchers and the Nephilim. If we examine the works of the authors of the New Testament, we do indeed find references to the world of the Watchers and the Nephilim.
In short, if Jesus meant any of that He certainly could have said something of it. What Burton is doing is disregarding what Jesus actually said and artificially inserting things He did not say into the statements that He did make.
Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
But He kept speaking directly with:
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
And note that pop-Nephilologists do not go on and on about the days of Lot even though Jesus referenced them.
Moreover, “1 Enoch…the Book of Enoch…the Book of Enoch…the Book of Enoch…the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees…the Book of Enoch…the Book of Enoch.”
One of those references was to note, “Irenaeus most certainly accepted the Book of Enoch as canon” which goes to show that a mere very few barely a faint blip on the radar of the early church committed that error: I chronicled who took which view from BC to early AD days 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.
Judd Buron then merely and generically asserts:
The triumph of orthodoxy ostensibly heralded the end, or at least a reduced influence, of Jewish apocalyptic tradition on Christian thought. With the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the evolution of the Biblical canon, texts giving accounts of the Watchers and Nephilim, such as the Book of Enoch, were seen as irrelevant and in some cases, heretical.
If that was the case, then why is Genesis still in the Bible?
CHAPTER 14
In this chapter, he decided to switch from 1 Enoch’s term Watcher to the 2 Enoch’s term Grigori (that text is in Slavonic and dates to the 1st century AD) further exampling lack of cohesive consistency.
In this chap, he focuses on, “the gamut of opinions regarding angelic beings and their offspring. Such specialists typically fall into three categories which he outlines as, “first…Nephilim were descendents of Seth or other humans, and may or may not believe in the existence of angels. The second believe that the Nephilim and the Grigori existed, but that they were simply a more advanced race, human or otherwise. The third and final major cabal, believes that the Grigrori [sic.] exist and that they mated with human females to produce a race of giants known as the Nephilim.”
The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice—again, see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?
Technically, Nephilim and the Grigori can be viewed as, “a more advanced race” yet, such a view does not actually make as much as a fait blip on the history of views radar.
And we know that the third cabal would have to answer what their usage is of giants.
SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Not surprisingly, his list begins thusly:
Primary
1 Enoch
Charles, R. H. (trans.) The Book of Jubilees. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917.
Interestingly, at least to me, a secondary recommendation is Charles DeLoach, Giants: A Reference Guide From History, The Bible, and Recorded Legen (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995). That is of interest since in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers I included pop-Nephilologist Steve Quayle and proved that he plagiarized entire sections/chapters from DeLoach which only made things worse for Quayle since DeLoach taught the same sort of fallacious Nephiology that Quayle and Burton, teach.
Also, Burton appealed to the aforementioned Dr. Michael Heiser thirteen times and while he was credentialed and experienced, his Nephilology was problematic and so in that regard, he tended to create more problems than he solved. See 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?
APPENDIX A: A CONCISE DEMONOLOGY
Interestingly he notes, “Theology is the obvious foundation of demonology” and it is a shame that he did not write, “Theology is the obvious foundation of Nephilology” since putting God and His Word first would have alleviated him from un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about post-flood Nephilim—that and sound hermeneutics that are not premised on one unreliable sentence.
Subsection are titled, “Characteristics of the Demon” and, “A Biographical Sketch of the Arch-Demon” a shortcut to which is my paper A Demonic Overview: What are Demons and what are they like? (The Christian Parapsychologist Journal, New Series Vol 2 No 7, 2022) since his view is tainted by folklore about dead Nephilim.
He wrote:
A demon, first and foremost, is a fallen angel. It is one of the angelic host who threw his support in with Satan, in his attempt to execute a coup in Heaven. For their treachery and betrayal, God cast them out of heaven. By some estimates, the number of demons that Satan took with him was roughly a third of the angelic population.
In my paper Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?[7] I actually elucidated a biblical theory as to the how of, “A demon, first and foremost, is a fallen angel,” the mechanism of how that can even be the case.
As for, “a coup in Heaven” granting we have precious little information about this—as is the case with all of which I term Systematic Biblical Paranormology—there is no indication of a, past tense, coup. What Rev 12 tells us is, “the great dragon…that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” who, “with…His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” with Rev 1 having told us that, “stars are the angels” when the context calls for it.
For the Angels, it may have been no more than about that, “saw that the daughters of man were attractive” and got a Satanic nudge.
Such is also whence comes the more than, “some estimates” number of a third.”
And, of course, it was not, “demons that Satan took with him was roughly a third of the angelic population” but, “Angels that Satan took with him was roughly a third of the angelic population.”
As for the coup, that would be more accurately stated of the post-Jesus’ ascension, “war…in heaven” after which, “the dragon and his angels…was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down…and his angels were thrown down with him.”
That is when, “God cast them out of heaven” and it seems to not have happened as of yet (as of 2025 AD when I am writing this).
Judd Burton wrote, “the phenomenon of demonization is as old as humanity, and demons themselves, as old as the creation of angels” but how can that be the case, even on his own view:
His view: demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim so it cannot be, “as old as…the creation of angels” since it was after their creation, by definition, that they fell/sinned during the Gen 6 timeline.
Biblical view: demons are the spirits of fallen/sinful Angels so it cannot be, “as old as…the creation of angels” due to the same chronological issue just noted.
He notes, “we cannot chart the primeval history of these creatures” but we have dots on the timeline: they were created, fell/sinned, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them”—subsequently, they were incarcerated in Tartarus (2 Peter 2), will be released (Rev 9): will fight and lose a war (Rev 12), and will be once again incarcerated, that time in eternal fire (Matt 25:41).
He wrote, “Examples of demonic appearances include Satan as the tempter of Job, Satan who incites David to commit murder” yet, those are not cases of, “demonic appearances” since that was Satan but he is not a demon in part due to that he is not an Angel but is a Cherub (Ezek 28)—nor a spirit of a dead Nephil so, that does not even work on Burton’s view.
Interestingly, he notes, “Later developments in Jewish demonology reflect outside cultural influences” and it is a shame that he did not write, “Since later developments in Jewish demonology reflect outside cultural influences we ought to reject the folklore about demons being dead Nephilim.”
He added, “‘sons of God’ (angels, fallen in this case) mated with the ‘daughters of men,’ which produced a race of semi-demons…Nephilim perished in the flood, but their souls continued to roam the earth as another race of demons.”
Again, “semi-demons” is inconsistent since they were semi-Angel and, “Nephilim perished in the flood, but their souls continued” is inconsistent with his teaching of physical post-flood Nephilim.
Conclusions
This is the conclusion of appendix A and is basically a mini-sermon which is great for what it is but not in keeping with the focus of my review.
APPENDIX B
This appendix is just a map and since it is based on his Nephilology, it is not a real map.
APPENDIX C
Same issue as with the previous map.
APPENDIX D SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM KEY TEXTS GENESIS 6
Herein, he quotes vss. 1-22 followed by, “THE BOOK OF ENOCH” from which he quotes chaps 6-10, 13.
He also quotes a literal fairy tale/legend:
“THE GIANT OF THE FLOOD”
From Gertrude Landa’s Jewish Fairy Tales and Legends (New York: Bloch, 1919)
This is a retelling of the legend of Og’s survival of the deluge.
That story includes, “‘I wonder,’ he [Noah] said to himself, ‘how I shall obtain a unicorn…’”
He then quotes Jude vss. 1-25.
Then Justin Martyr about whom you can read a chapter in my On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? book and likewise with Origen.
In the end, it is rather unfortunate that from a combo of essays and papers we did not get Ph.D., MA, BA level Nephilology but ended up with pop-Nephilology based on a series of fallacies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Endnotes:
[1] Joe Taylor, “Story Behind the Giant Human Femur Sculpture,” Mt Blanco: http://mtblanco.com/TourGiantArticle.htm
[2] Video: Is the giant (Nephilim) femur bone real? Mt. Blanco Museum’s Joe Taylor explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfzLXe9H4Lk
[3] Michael Heiser, “The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy”: http://ceifan.org/nephilim.pdf, 1-8.
[4] Michael Heiser, More Unseen Realm: https://www.moreunseenrealm.com/ch25
[5] Ken Ammi, “Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty,” TrueFreeThinker: https://truefreethinker.com/dead-kings-and-rephaim-the-patrons-of-the-ugaritic-dynasty
[6] “Gilgamesh tomb believed found,” BBC, 29 April, 2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2982891.stm
[7] Ken Ammi, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?,” MCOI Journal: https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/10/03/demons-ex-machina-what-are-demon