If there is anything I love, it is dealing with issues pertaining to Nephilim and giants and this is for various reasons including the fact that small subtleties can lead to gigantic conclusions. Hereinafter, I am going to comment on the following articles by Dr. Claude Mariottini (Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary): Rereading Genesis 6:4: Were They Really Giants?, The Nephilim Again: A Response to Joe Cathey and Duane Smith, and Bruce Waltke on the Nephilim.
He notes, “The word translated ‘giant’ in the KJV is based on the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament into Greek” while others leave “the Hebrew word Nephilim untranslated.” The former case is due to the Septuagint/LXX translating (technically rendering) it as gigantes γιγάντων which literally means Earth-born.
Dr. Mariottini notes, “The KJV uses the word ‘giant’ to translate the word ‘Nephilim’ in Genesis 6:4 and in Numbers 13:33. In addition, the KJV uses the word ‘giants’ several other times, but most of them to translate the word ‘warrior’ (Job16:14 ESV) or the word ‘Rephaites’ (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20 NIV) or ‘Rapha’ (2Samuel 21:22 NIV).” So that is a rendering of a rendering.
Something that my readers may be tired or hearing (or, reading) me state but is of the utmost importance was evidenced in this comment. The word “giant(s)” does not belong in English Bibles because 1) it is a generic term merely meaning taller than average (and Hebrew males of those days averaged 5.5ft.) and 2) it is employed so as to render various Hebrew words making it even vaguer, less helpful and more prone to causing confusion.
Dr. Mariottini further notes, “There were several groups of people who were called giants in the Old Testament…a tall group of people…The word anak in Hebrew means ‘long-neck’ or giants.…all the inhabitants of the land were giants.” Thus, “There were several groups of people who were called” by the same generic English word but different Hebrew ones.
Also, “a tall group of people” presents the same problem which is that “tall” is relative (recall the average 5.5 ft. and that was for males who tend to be taller than females).
Then there is the issue of anak meaning “‘long-neck’ or giants” well no, it means long-neck and not giants even if some render it as such into English—granted that perhaps having unusually long necks made them taller than the average male Hebrew but this still would not mean that this is what the word means in common parlance: 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).
Thus, when we come to a conclusion such as that “all the inhabitants of the land were giants” we must hear it as stating that “all the inhabitants of the land were” well, some generic thing or another or, rather that “all the inhabitants of the land were” described by different Hebrew words even if Dr. Mariottini wrote, “When Moses sent the twelve spies to visit the land of Canaan (Numbers13), they identified the offspring of the Anakim with the Nephilim of Genesis6:4” and we shall see what is meant by “identified.”
He elucidates:
To the ten spies, the fortified walls of the Canaanite cities were an overwhelming obstacle for their conquest of the land. The spies were so terrified by the size of the inhabitants of Canaan that they concocted a story in order to dissuade the people from entering the land. The spies said to the people:
“The land we explored devours those living in it. 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” (Num. 13:32-33 NIV).
In their exaggeration of the situation, the spies said that, in addition to being people of gigantic stature, the Anakim were the Nephilim, the dreadful people who lived on earth in the days before the flood.
It is rare that I find anyone who agrees with me—with the Bible actually—on that they “concocted a story.” In fact, the prior verses have them being intimidated by the size of the cities/walls (them being intenerate wilderness dwellers) and that the peoples, in general, were `az: strong (#H5794). They even mention various people groups including the Anakim but say nothing of the unusual size of any of them.
Yet indeed, only once Caleb chimes in to encourage (with Joshua siding with him) the people do the unfaithful/disloyal spies “In their exaggeration of the situation,” and just before we are told that they presented a bad/evil report, they tell of great height and that “the Anakim were” from, actually “the Nephilim”: FYI: Anakim aren’t mentioned in the LXX vesion of that verse.
I also agree 100% with Dr. Mariottini in that “the spies did not see any Nephilim for the Nephilim had died in the flood” which he continues with “The spies saw the Anakim, tall people who lived in Canaan at the time Israel was preparing to enter the land” keeping in mind that “tall” is generic as well and that they were “Dominated by fear and superstition, the spies identified the Anakim with the Nephilim of old. There were no Nephilim in Canaan, only Anakim.”
In fact, in relating this event Moses, Caleb and God Himself affirm that Anakim were in the land but say nothing about Nephilim—as being in the land or that the Anakim are related to them (see Deuteronomy 1, Joshua 14 and Numbers 14).
Dr. Mariottini then goes into more etymology:
Most scholars today derive the Hebrew word Nephilim from the Hebrew verb naphal, which means “fallen ones.” This is the translation adopted by Young’s Literal Translation: “The fallen ones were in the earth in those days…” Some scholars have derived Nephilim from a Hebrew word nephel, which means “miscarriage.”
These scholars understand the Nephilim as unnaturally begotten superhuman beings emerging from miscarriages…some scholars view the Nephilim as the ones fallen from heaven, that is, divine beings or angels.
He adds that “Those who translate ‘Nephilim’ as ‘giants’…fails to deal with the moral issues raised by the commingling of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of men’…Those who leave the word ‘Nephilim’ untranslated recognize that…the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Anakim of Numbers 13:33” and he drives this point home, “the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 are not the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4…the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33.” I would emphasize that it is not just a case of that they are not the same but that in Genesis 6 they are actually present but in Numbers 13 they are not.
We then come to a not all together oddity in Dr. Mariottini’s view of this issue which is that “According to the biblical text, it was the progeny of the sons of God and the daughters of men who were ‘the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown,’ not the Nephilim…Genesis 6:1-4 does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men.”
It seems to me that this conclusion is due to a grammatical issue—and also does not make sense. I believe his conclusion is based on v. 4 which reads “There were nĕphiyl in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Thus, some read this as that the Nephilim just so happen to be there when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. It seems that an elucidating reordering of the English translation would be when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, there were nĕphiyl in the earth in those days (as they were the nĕphiyl); and also after that, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
For me, the key issue is not just that the Nephilim would just happen to be there: where by the way? “in the earth” in general or the general vicinity of where the Genesis 6 affair took place? The key issue is that if they are not the offspring then why mention them? In other words, why say that this is a record of the affair between the sons of God and the daughters of men, their marriages, and their offspring and, oh yeah by the way, the Nephilim were also around at the time—just thought to mention it for no apparent reason: especially as we know nothing about them prior, nothing about them is described. We are not told why they are being mentioned/why referring to them is relevant, not told what the point is, etc., etc., etc.
To one of the articles, someone in the comments section wrote, “The Nephilim were called giants because the sons of God married the daughters of men” which makes zero sense. They also wrote, “sons of God is more apt to denote individuals that had some covenant relationship with God through the line of Adam to Seth and the daughters of Cain” and followed directly with catching themselves in a problem which is “Why this would create ‘giants’ or ‘Nephilim’ is not completely clear.”
They also wrote, “Some have interpreted this as fallen angels marrying human women. However, spiritual beings do not procreate, so this interpretation must be discounted.” But just as common as such comments are made this one was also not elucidated but is a mere assertion. We are merely told that “spiritual beings do not procreate” (note that this is not about spirit beings but about spiritual beings) but we are offered no argument, no quotations, no citations, nothing. Thus, this interpretation must not be discounted based on a mere assertion.
The Sethite view is a late-comber based on myth and prejudice which ends up claiming that individuals that had some covenant relationship with God didn’t really had some covenant relationship with God since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
This also goes against the view taken in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2. Someone commented that they ran across “an interesting spin on the translation of nephilim from hebrew as ‘those who came down’…could ‘those who came down’ refer to extra-terrestrials…they were still around post flood. they may have ‘come backdown’ when the coast was clear.”
Dr. Mariottini noted “in Hebrew, ‘to come down’ is a word different from the word ‘naphal’ (to fall)” and dismissed the ET idea. The commentator made it clear that they consider the Bible an example of when the Sumerians’ “texts were twisted.” For some details on this sort of view, see Is the Bible an Anunnaki control mechanism?
Another comment was, “ANGELS WHERE KNOWN BEFORE THE FLOOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH US HUMANS…ANGELSHAVE [been] KNOWN TO TAKE HUMAN FORM.…I LISTEN TO CHUCK MISSLER ALL THE TIMEAND HE TALKS ABOUT THIS AND I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAIDS.” Much like the assertion that “spiritual beings do not procreate” the statement that “ANGELS HAVE [been] KNOWN TO TAKE HUMAN FORM” is another mere assertion about which the Bible states nothing. Biblically, Angels look like human males ontologically: in their nature and essence so that they do not “take” human form but are naturally of human form, see my book What Does the Bible Say AboutAngels?
Moreover, perhaps “ANGELS WHERE KNOWN BEFORE THE FLOOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH US HUMANS” but the Bible does not state as much. And Missler has certainly made a lot of good points on this issue and certainly popularized it but he references a “return of the Nephilim” but the Bible knows of no suchthing—see 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.
Along these lines, someone commented, “Does not the Bible teach that Angels are male in outward appearance, character and actions but lack the ability to reproduce(N.T.)? Or, at the least leave a strong impression of this with us.” Yes, the Bible teach that Angels are male in outward appearance, character and actions but no, we are never told that they lack the ability to reproduce—we are only told that the Angels “of God” and “in heaven,” as in loyal un-fallen ones, do not marry (Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25) which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Someone commented, “the SONS OF GOD were men in the Godly line of Seth, and the Daughters of man were women from the un-Godly line of Cain” and referred to this as an “unacceptable union.” Dr. Mariottini noted, “Mixed marriage is not a good reason for a flood that destroyed the whole world” to which the reply was “Mixed marriages were absolutely a perfect reason for the destruction of the world. The intermingled union of Sethites and Cainanites were in direct rebellion to God, that is sin and all sin is worthy of death…God intended for the two lines to remain distinct.”
The main issue here is that the claim that the “line of Seth” and “un-Godly line of Cain” were an “unacceptable union” and that “The intermingled union of Sethites and Cainanites were in direct rebellion to God, that is sin and all sin” and that “God intended for the two lines to remain distinct” are all mere assertions about which the Bible knows nothing.
In any case, Dr. Mariottini followed up with “Genesis 6:11. This is the real reason for the flood” which reads, “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” The commentator then took a step back with “I never said that mixed marriages were the only reason for the flood” and “it doesn’t mean that the nephilim were a race of giants…Another point is that angels had not been mentioned yet in scripture, however Moses did speak openly against mixed marriages between Cainenites and Sethites.” That against which Moses did speak was marriages between the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews and non-Hebrews/Israelites/Jews.
Dr. Mariottini quoted Bruce Waltke’s An Old TestamentTheology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007):
The “sons of God” are best understood as demon-possessed kings. The perverted psyches of these tyrants allowed this entrance of the demonic. The Nephilim (i.e., “fallen ones”)–who also existed at the time of Moses (Num. 13:33)–were probably their offspring, also called “heroes.” They filled the earth with violence.
Dr. Mariottini is quite rightly blunt in stating, “This interpretation is impossible” and elucidates, “If the Nephilim existed in the time of Moses and if they were the offspring of the ‘sons of God,’ then this means that they survived the flood. The biblical text is very clear that only Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives, eight people, survived the flood (1 Peter3:20)…If all people died in the flood, except Noah and his family, then the Nephilim could not have survived the flood. If the Nephilim could not survive the flood, then, the Nephilim in the time of Moses could not have been the descendants of the ‘sons of God’ since they also perished in the flood.”
He also wrote, “Genesis 6:4 which declares that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and also afterward. This editorial comment, and also afterward, written by the writer of Genesis, seems to imply that the Nephilim survived the flood, thus helping the writer of the biblical text identify the Nephilim with the tall people who lived in Canaan.”
Someone commented, “E.W. Bullinger is not exactly a scholarly source, but one thing he pointed out was this: that passage in Genesis 6 says there were nephilim in those days, AND AFTERWARDS. For him, that means that they were destroyed in the flood, then a new batch of them emerged later on, after the flood. Therefore, as far as he was concerned, there were Nephiliim after the flood. And Numbers13:33 calls the inhabitants of Canaan Nephilim.” I actually featured Bullinger in my book Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III.
Let us review: indeed, the last of the Nephilim died in the flood—period. Note that it is reading into and inserting words and meanings into the text to claim that Genesis 6:4 “declares that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and also afterward.” The Bible states that they were “in the earth in those days; and also after that” and states nothing of the flood on this point. But, some ask, to what else could “those days; and also after that” refer?
Well, the text begins by setting a timeline starting point which is “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” which could be as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children. Thus, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” are “those days” and “also after that” means just that: after men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them.
In other words, contextually “those days; and also after that” are both pre-flood. This leads some, such as Bullinger, to propose what is known in pop-research circles as the multiple incursions theory whereby they admit that the last of the Nephilim dies in the flood but then more Angels fell and did the whole thing again.
Yet, the Bible knows utterly nothing about this and it would defeat God’s purpose for the flood in the first place. Also,it is not accurate that “Numbers 13:33 calls the inhabitants of Canaan Nephilim” as the spies were referring to the Nephilim within the context of naming various other people groups such as Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (vss. 28-29). Itis rather odd that Dr. Mariottini not only argues that the Nephilim did not survive the flood but that the Bible affirms this but then also claims that “the writer of Genesis, seems to imply that the Nephilim survived the flood” as a technical literary loophole.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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