The Messenger Church of God ministry’s COGMessenger website’s Rod Reynolds posted an article titled Were There Giants on the Earth?
The title begs the key questions 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?
He quotes that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).
He gets right into the key questions with:
The word “giants” is translated from the Hebrew word nephilim, from naphal, “he fell.” (Clarke’s Commentary). This word does not necessarily mean a person of great stature or size. In the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the pre-Christian era, the Greek word γιγαντες (gigantes) was used to translate nephilim.
The word γιγαντες literally means “earth-born” (Clarke’s Commentary), and also does not necessarily indicate a person of great stature or size.
However, some scholars have pointed out that Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew, has a word that in its plural form would be nephilin, equivalent to Hebrew nephilim, and meaning “giants” (cf “Battle over the Nephilim,” Tim Chaffey, answersingenesis.org, January 1, 2012).
Technically it’s not that, “The word ‘giants’ is translated” but rather rendered from—and it’s a rendering of a rendering.
The rendering of the rendering is that giants renders gigantes which renders Nephilim—yet, be aware that the LXX also rendered gibborim and Rephaim as such (which was a terrible idea).
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.
As for the Aramaic issue, 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).
Yet, it’s a battle of the scholars since, for example, Dr. Michael Heiser did argue that the Aramaic naphiyla does mean giant. Yet, that only begs the question of what his usage of giants was. Well, he did leave us with this, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet)” (https://www.moreunseenrealm.com/ch25).
Indeed, it’s not just that, “This word does not necessarily mean a person of great stature or size” 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.
As for Chaffey, my name appears favorably in his book since we found out that we were conducting the same research around the same time with regard to 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.
I made him aware of 8-9 references he had missed and he made me aware of 2-3 that I had missed. Yet, I also included him in 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.
That was because his Nephilology isn’t biblical: for examples, see my website’s search Results for “Tim Chaffey.”
Rod Reynolds myopically noted:
The term “sons of God,” or “children of God,” is used several places in the Bible of those who are sanctified, i.e., who are led by God’s Spirit, not the spirit of the world, or fleshly lusts (Hosea 1:10; Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; John 1:12; 11:52; Romans 8:14-21; 9:8, 26; Galatians 3:26; 4:6; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 2:15; I John 3:1-2, 10; 5:2; Revelation 21:7).
I said myopically since, for example, he didn’t note that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
He concludes, “Probably Genesis 6:4 is speaking of descendants of Seth intermarrying with the descendants of Cain” but that’s a late-comer of a view—I wonder why it was only strictly male Sethites who were terrible sinners and only exclusively female Cainites.
He notes that such marriages were, “with the descendants of Cain, or who had not corrupted themselves by rebelling against God in other ways” but there’s no indication of any such thing. That view is based on myth and prejudice.
He notes:
The “nephilim” of Genesis 6:4 were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” The word translated “mighty,” gibbôr, implies one who is powerful, and could imply one who is a tyrant, or a bully, a violent man. The word translated “renown” is shêm (pronounced shame), and implies one who is famous, or who is in a conspicuous position. The implication is that these men were the leaders of the society at the time, the rulers, the famous warriors, etc. But they were degenerate morally and spiritually.
Sure, it “could imply…tyrant…bully…violent” but it’s also applied to God (Isa 9) and is typically defined generically as might/mighty.
He notes, “Very likely, some of them were men of great size…what we would call giants in the sense of physical size” yet, he very rightly noted, “although the Scripture does not specifically say that.”
Note that “great size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
He adds:
In the New King James version, the word “giant,” or plural “giants,” occurs 20 times. In most of these it is speaking of individuals or groups of men who were of extraordinarily large stature, as can be determined from the context. And this same Hebrew word, “nephilim,” is used in connection with them, as well as other words. Some of the “giants” spoken of in the Bible were famous and were kings.
Note that “extraordinarily large” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as great size and giants.
We will get to what he must have meant by that the, “Hebrew word, ‘nephilim,’ is used in connection with them” since that’s a problematic assertion—stand by.
He then refers to, “gigantic stature” which, you guessed it, is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as extraordinarily large, great size and giants.
He noted:
Internet browser concerning human giants returned a response summed up as follows: “In short, no giant human remains have been scientifically verified, and mainstream archaeology and paleontology reject the idea of a race of giant humans.” An article in Wikipedia states as follows: “Giant skeletons reported in the United States until the early 20th century were a combination of hoaxes, scams, fabrications, and the misidentifications of extinct megafauna” (wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_human_skeletons; retrieved 3-20-2026).
But we need to know the usage of giants and what that has to do with the Bible.
He goes on to refer to, “references to men of giant, or extraordinarily large stature found in the Bible? Were there giants on the earth? Did men like Goliath” to whom we shall yet get—stand by.
Rod Reynolds quoted:
“But the men who had gone up with him said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.’ And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ‘The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight’” (Numbers 13:31-33).
It’s rather odd that after quoting that, he concludes:
The word used here, translated “giants,” is the same word used in Genesis 6:4: nephilim. Here we plainly see a report of men of gigantic proportions, much larger than the average Israelite, or other average size men.
He had prefaced that with, “When God had brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, he told Moses to send some men into the land of Canaan to explore, and bring back a report.” They actually brought back two reports: the first is reliable, the second (the one he quoted) is not.
Just how it is that, “we plainly see” that? Or, perhaps I should say that sure, we see that in an unreliable report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
They made five mere assertions that are unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible. And, they created the problem of post-flood Nephilim—which is why post-flood Nephilologists are forced to make up un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about just how the Nephilim made it past the flood, past God.
So, sure, in an utterly false report it’s, “the same word used in Genesis 6:4: nephilim” but it matters not and sure, “we plainly see a report of men of gigantic proportions, much larger” but that was just a tall-tale.
You know it, “gigantic proportions, much larger” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as gigantic stature, extraordinarily large, great size and giants.
Indeed, as per Deut 2 Rephaim who were aka Emmim and Zamzummim the tribe of which Anakim were a clan were subjectively, “tall”—with, “tall” being just as well, you know.
Subjectively that means taller by some unknown degree than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
He then quotes regarding how, “Og…remained of the remnant of the giants” and ruled, “Bashan…known as the ‘land of the giants.’” He didn’t note to his audience that biblically contextually that means, “Og…remained of the remnant of the Rephaim” and ruled, “Bashan…known as the ‘land of the Rephaim.’”
He then notes, “Og’s bed was at least 13.5 feet long and six feet wide” but what of it? We’ve no physical description of him and jumping to a conclusion about his height based on the size of his, “bed” is a non-sequitur based on various assumptions.
Indications are that it wasn’t something on which he slept, it was a ritual object—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
We now come to Goliath whom, or so he myopically tells us, “was over nine feet tall” but he didn’t tell us 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.
He then quotes a long text that I will reduce to, “Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels…Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant…Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam…a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant…These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:16-22).
It’s not as exciting but that actually reads, “Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the Repha, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels…Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the Repha…Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam…a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the Repha…These four were born to the Repha in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:16-22).
The only reference to height is, “great stature” (assuming that’s not about social stature) and well, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall, gigantic proportions, gigantic stature, extraordinarily large, great size and giants.
Note that Goliath had a guy assisting with the equipment. Regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.
Oddly, Rod Reynolds goes onnote:
The Keil and Delitzsch commentary explains “the giant” referred to in II Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22 (above) as “Raphah, one of the gigantic race of Rephaim. Raphah was the tribe-father of the Rephaim, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature, of whom only a few families were left even in Moses’ time.”
We can’t do anything useful with the incessant use of watered down vague terminology. Biblically contextually, “the gigantic race of Rephaim” would mean, “the Rephaim race of Rephaim.”
For more about Keil and Delitzsch and many others, see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s.
He then goes on to tell us of, “Other than the Bible, is there any evidence that humans of giant stature existed?” but, “Other than” what?
Nephilim: no reliable physical description.
Og: no physical description.
Goliath: most reliably, just shy of 7ft.
A man of generically, “great stature.”
Rephaim/Emmim/Zamzummim/Anakim: taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
It’s not very exciting when we iron out the facts but such is why pop-Nephilologists make up un-biblical fantasy tall-tales for a living: click-bait is exciting and lucrative.
To support, “Other than the Bible, is there any evidence that humans of giant stature existed…Men nine feet tall or taller…These would include fossil remains of, among others, the following: Columbian Mammoth…Dire wolves…Giant Sloths…Glyptodon: A giant armored mammal related to and resembling a large armadillo…Megalodon: The largest shark…Giant Rhinoceros…Megalania (Varanus priscus): A giant monitor lizard…Argentavis: The largest flying bird…Diprotodon: World’s largest marsupial…Deinosuchus riograndensis: Fossilized remains of gigantic crocodiles.”
Now, I’ve no idea what that has to do with, “humans of giant stature existed…Men nine feet tall or taller” but he does tell us: it’s a giant jump to a huge conclusion, “If other creatures existed in families and individuals of extraordinary size, who is to say that the same was not true of humans, as has been reported not just in Scripture, but in many ancient traditions?”
Note that my claim, at least, isn’t that Nephilim weren’t taller than the subjective parochial average, taller than we are today on average, etc. but is rather that we’ve no reliable indication of that. If we’re going to merely speculate then fine, let’s merely speculate but that’s as far as we can take it.
He then reviews claims of taller than average people throughout history but they’re irrelevant to my context: of course taller than average people existed throughout history, the issue is what of it?
For details, see my books What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology and Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales which review the biblical data as well as old newspaper reports and much more that it all the rage in pop-Nephilology circles.
His conclusion is, “There were giants on the earth, as the Bible says” but that really means, “There were whatever I subjectively mean by ‘giants’ with any given usage on the earth, as the one modern English Bible I happen to be reading says” (which is the New King James Version in his case).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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