On Reddit, a certain TheZeCarpenter posted The Nephilim Weren’t Literal Giants… They Were Pedophiles.
At least for me, I find that it’s virtually impossible to get any interaction going on Reddit: I post comments and 99% of the time no one replies—and I don’t just mean random comments but replies to posts and subsequent comments. I’m unsure if those discussing such issues are just functioning on the surface level and can’t handle peaking even one inch deeper or well, I don’t know.
In any case, this is the original post which I will follow with my reply which was ignored:
The thing biblical scholars haven’t been able to really solve is where the giants of the bible went. Why no skeletons?
We’ve all been taught to picture the Nephilim as literal mega‑giants. But what if “giant” wasn’t about physical size so much as relative size?
To a child, those men and women would be literal giants: towering physically over them. There isn’t a lot of stuff written about them, but consider what is written:
The Nephilim are:
– A small, ultra‑powerful class
– Linked to violence, exploitation, and corruption
– Operating above normal accountability
– Remembered as “men of renown,” not necessarily as good guys
In Numbers, Israel sends spies to go report on other lands. The spies come back to report the other lands are prosperous but there are “Nephilim” present. And what do they report? A group so powerful, so untouchable, that ordinary people feel insect‑level small in comparison. After this, Israel takes over many of these lands.
Replace “Israeli spies” with “Epistein” and “Nephilim” with “big men who seem like giants to the little kids they abuse” and you’ve got a modern description.
The Hebrew term often translated “Nephilim” is tied to a root meaning “to fall,” which is why many read it as “fallen ones,” but what if it’s actually signaling something like evil deeds that could be used as blackmail? Nephilim is commonly tied to the Hebrew root n‑p‑l, “to fall,” “fallen ones” and “those who cause others to fall.” Evil deeds that make them vulnerable but for their power.
Clearly I’m not a biblical scholar but something interesting to think about as all of this Epstein stuff is happening.
My reply:
We can’t know to what you’re referring by “The Nephilim Weren’t Literal Giants” unless or until you tell us: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
Biblically contextually, “The Nephilim Weren’t Literal Giants” would mean, “The Nephilim Weren’t Literal Nephilim” which would be incoherent.
I’m imagining that you’re committing a word-concept fallacy by merely assuming that, “giants” in the English Bibles that employ that term refers to well, something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
Yet, the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
So, you’re right in that “‘giant’ wasn’t about physical size so much” but it’s not even about, “relative size.”
You seem to be saying, “The thing biblical scholars haven’t been able to really solve is where the something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average of the bible went.”
Well, since that’s all it means then there’s plenty of skeletons: if one skeleton is taller than another then there you have it.
Granted, “We’ve all been taught to picture the Nephilim as literal mega‑giants” but the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales. FYI: I’ve written some dozen research based Nephilology books, just search Amazon or other book sellers for “Ken Ammi.”
As for, “To a child…” indeed, issues of vague size different are all relative.
You misrepresented, “Numbers,” referring to chap 13 since it’s not generically, “sends spies…The spies” since there were 12 but you’re referring verse 33 and you needed to mention that you’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “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 see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
So, “there are ‘Nephilim’ present” was utterly false on many and every level.
As for, “Epstein stuff” there’s literally zero indication whatsoever that any of this has anything to do with that.
That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply