I don’t know why I do this to myself but I sometimes read AI vomited articles and one such a one is Goliath: The Nephilim Connection by the Oreate AI Blog which notes, “Read the latest guides, tips, and insights on smart Al writing and presentation generation!” and, “Oreate AI is your all-in-one assistant, helping you write essays, build presentations, and humanize your content—100% plagiarism-free.”
In typical AI fashion, it notes that, “Some” unnamed, un-quoted, and un-cited, “scholars” of an unknown enumeration, “suggest that Goliath could indeed be classified among the Nephilim, those enigmatic beings mentioned in Genesis 6:4” so let’s see how and why those, “Some” claim such an logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible thing.
The question, “could it imply that giants like Goliath had supernatural lineage?” is asked just after noting, “Nephilim…walked the earth before the flood…when divine beings mingled with humans…born from the union of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of man’” so that question is a non-sequitur, in a manner of speaking, since nothing about Goliath has anything to do with any of that.
Ah, but here comes Num 13:33 right on schedule—since there’s literally nothing else to which to appeal for such an impossibility and, in typical pop-Nephilology fashion, it’s misread, misrepresented, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied.
The AI tells us:
Interestingly, Numbers 13:33 adds another layer to this discussion by stating that when Israelite spies entered Canaan, they encountered descendants of Anak—the Nephilim—and felt like mere grasshoppers in comparison. Here lies an important clue suggesting not just physical stature but also an aura of fearsome power surrounding these beings.
1) stating “Numbers 13:33 adds” is merely telling us where to find a statement, it’s just a citation, so it doesn’t answer fundamental hermeneutical questions such as: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc.
2) Num chap 13 does not record that, “when Israelite spies entered Canaan, they encountered descendants of Anak—the Nephilim.” Rather, there were 12 spies and two reports. This is referring to the 10 unreliable spies who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuked by God.
3) as for, “they encountered descendants of Anak—the Nephilim” that’s only from non-LXX versions since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim.
4) thus, there’s literally zero reliable indication of, “descendants of Anak—the Nephilim.”
5) that mere assertion, premised on a misrepresentation of the text and based on myopia, solves no problems but causes many. Just how did Nephilim, by any other name, get past the flood, past the God who clearly failed since He must have missed a loophole which made the flood much of a waste?
6) what we know of Anakim is that they were named after Anak who was Abra’s son and were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe (Deut 2): zero reliable correlation to Nephilim.
7) as for, “felt like mere grasshoppers in comparison” well, since that metaphor is the only thing that we can even consider any sort of physical description of Nephilim but it comes from one unreliable sentence from one unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked then 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, including some specifically debunking pop-Nephilologists.
The AI is just generically parroting generic statements, it has literally no detailed solid data to provide.
In fact, it tells us, “many translations lean towards interpreting them strictly as giants due to their size” but we now know that’s a non-issue since we don’t know anything about their size.
At least it notes, “a possible fallen angelic origin” and the fact is that The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
The AI also refers to Goliath’s, “portrayal as a giant” but that was just artificially (by two definitions) inserted since nothing had been said about his size. And, the AI doesn’t seem to know that the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
In fact, the AI might even think that the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles is used to mean 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.
Get it?
When English readers read in some English versions that Goliath was a, “giants” they’re merely reading that he was a Repha, it’s identifying his tribal affiliation, it’s not identifying anything about his size—and since we don’t know Nephilim’s size then we couldn’t correlate Goliath to them even if he was however tall anyone wants to subjectively claim tall is: the AI generically refers to, “his daunting height.”
The AI tells us that a vague reference to Goliath’s size (without telling us his size), “aligns well with descriptions found throughout biblical narratives where size equates to power and intimidation” but it doesn’t offer one single example and such isn’t even the case.
At least the AI notes, “Scripture does not explicitly label him a Nephilim.”
It also gets correct that what is found recorded in the Bible is that, “it paints him simply as a champion from Philistine ranks known for his…combat prowess.”
The article ends with:
Ultimately, whether or not we classify Goliath among the Nephilim may depend on how one interprets scripture’s rich tapestry woven between earthly realities and celestial mysteries.
Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper so when it comes down it, it’s really about, “Ultimately, whether or not we classify Goliath among the Nephilim may depend on” one’s view of God: is He a failure or not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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