The Way of Truth site posted an article titled Understanding Genesis 6:4: Giants and Their True Legacy. In part, we’re told, “This site is devoted to proclaiming the eternal truth of God’s Word and upholding its authority against all forms of error, false doctrine, and skeptical attacks.”
The usage of the term “Giants” begs these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the Way of Truth site’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
That which I term the Gen 6 affair is quoted thusly, “‘There were giants 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’ (Genesis 6:4).”
It’s noted, “the account of widespread human multiplication and moral decline…humanity’s wickedness…the presence of ‘giants,’…moral decay and impending judgment…The verse thus prepares the reader for the Flood.”
We’re told, “The Hebrew term nephilim is introduced without explanation, signaling that the author assumes either familiarity or that precise definition is not the narrative priority…Moses does not tell us where the nephilim came from, only that they existed…Genesis 6:4 is not attempting to resolve the origin of the Nephilim.” Yet, he did tell us whence and when they came, “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 sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
Note that when a mere four words are quoted, it’s simple to argue:
The addition “and also after that” is crucial for proper interpretation. This phrase indicates continuity beyond the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–2. The nephilim are not confined to a single generation or event, nor are they portrayed as a unique aberration never repeated. This wording strongly cautions against reading Genesis 6:4 as a one-time supernatural intrusion. Instead, the text presents the nephilim as recurring figures associated with certain cultural conditions.
As we will see, “beyond the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–2…not confined to a single generation or event” not a, “one-time supernatural intrusion…recurring” can only refer to pre-flood days since that’s the only time Nephilim lived.
Of the term Nephilim we’re told, “Later biblical usage, especially in Numbers 13:33, associates the nephilim with fear, intimidation, and perceived invincibility rather than with metaphysical origin” so we will have to see what that’s all about.
We’re told:
Importantly, Genesis 6:4 does not claim that the nephilim are produced by these unions. The nephilim are mentioned before this clause, and the grammar does not link them causally to the relationships described. This sequencing undercuts interpretations that insist the nephilim must be hybrid offspring. The verse instead juxtaposes two realities occurring in the same period.
That “The nephilim are mentioned before this clause” seems to mean that the author of the article is, at that point, ignoring vss. 1-2 and if fixating on v. 4. In fact, later in the article, this is made quite clear, “The verse opens with a statement of fact: ‘There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that.’ Only then does it proceed to describe the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men and the offspring that resulted from that union” yet, vss. 1-2 already, “describe the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.”
So the, “Only then” is myopically about one single verse, not about the whole narrative. Thus, when that’s followed by, “Nephilim are not introduced as the offspring of those unions…The grammar does not link their origin causally to the unions described” it actually does just that.
The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
Yet, based on that basic level error in reading comprehension—fallacious eisegetical hermeneutics—the author’s conclusion is that Nephilim, “are fully human.” 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.
Yet, part of that mundane conclusion the premise, “Genesis consistently places moral responsibility on humanity rather than shifting blame to non-human forces.” Yet, that fails to elucidate that Angels, Nephilim, humans, and God are all referred to as man/men. It also fails to note that of course humanity is the Bible’s main focus no matter upon what it touches in passing or detail since it’s an anthology about our creation, our fall, and our redemption. And, it fails to note that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
It had been noted that, “Genesis 6:4 is not attempting to resolve the origin of the Nephilim” which is a sentence that continues with, “nor is it presenting them as the central explanatory factor for the Flood” and yet, it literally serves as the premise for all which follows in terms of what led to the flood.
For some odd reason, the article then loops back to, “Later biblical usage, most notably in Numbers 13:33, associates the Nephilim with fear, intimidation, and perceived invincibility” and back to, “Genesis 6:4 does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God” and repeats the same fallacious assertions.
And yet, it then loops within a loop to note, “the text does explicitly connect the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men with the birth of children who later ‘became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.’”
We’re told, “The text does not describe these men as ontologically different from other humans. They are not called angels, hybrids, or divine beings. They are men” and yet, 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.
It’s noted, “The implication is…the boundary-breaking union” but, pray tell, what boundary is broken when humans mate with humans?
As for, “If the ‘sons of God’ are best understood as angelic beings who transgressed divinely established boundaries” we’re told that, “Appeals to Matthew 22:30 must be carefully qualified. Jesus teaches that angels ‘in heaven’ do not marry, which establishes the normative order of angelic existence, not the impossibility of rebellion or transgression.” That’s very well said (I have to point that out to pop-Nephilologists all the time): that’s why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
On that view, “Genesis 6, on this reading, depicts angels acting against their created purpose. That does not require Scripture to explain how such rebellion functioned physically” and yet, it did: it was the good ol’ fashioned way.
We’re told, “Scripture nowhere develops a doctrine of angel–human hybridity. It never revisits the idea, never categorizes the offspring as a distinct class of beings, and never grounds judgment in their nature. This silence strongly suggests that Moses’s concern lies elsewhere.”
The reason for that is that Nephilim were done away with via the flood so there was no more to be said: they were a post-flood non-issue—stand by for more on the post-flood Num 13:33.
Back to the fallacy of myopically implying that man/men can only ever refer to hu-mans, it’s noted, “The decisive theological signal comes in Genesis 6:5–7, where God’s judgment is grounded entirely in human wickedness. The earth is condemned because man is corrupt, violent, and continually evil in thought. The mighty men are judged as men, remembered as men, and swept away as men” which ignores the Gen 1-4 premise.
The only thing noted about that is, “The Nephilim form part of the ominous backdrop” but they’re identified as humans in the article so it’s all one in the same
The author of the article then loops back to, “Nephilim are…not identified as the offspring of the unions” as if having to constantly loop so as to keep the reading audience reading in that direction.
We’re told, “Genesis 6:4 never describes…non-human anatomy” but why would it since both sides of Nephilim’s parentage look human: the daughters of men were human women and Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
It’s noted, “From a theological standpoint, Genesis 6:4 also guards against a subtle but serious apologetic error: the displacement of human responsibility. One might be tempted to explain the Flood as a response to non-human interference: angelic rebellion, monstrous offspring, or cosmic contamination. Yet the narrative emphatically refuses that explanation.” What the narrative does is to marry them so neither the extreme of weaving tall-tales of pop-Nephilologists (who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) nor the extreme of weaving mundane rescue devices tell us the full story.
We’re then looped back to, “When God renders His verdict, the indictment falls squarely on man…wickedness of man…under judgment is a human world, shaped by human choices and values” which include Gen 6:1-2.
The article ends with a long section of sermonizing which is fine for what it is but not within my review context.
Now, we had been told, “the account of widespread human multiplication and moral decline…humanity’s wickedness…the presence of ‘giants,’…moral decay and impending judgment…The verse thus prepares the reader for the Flood…Genesis 6 moves steadily toward divine judgment…a moral narrative moving inexorably toward judgment…Nephilim…are…part of a world that God evaluates as corrupt” and yet, post-flood Nephilim are asserted due to Num 13:33.
As for, “Moses’s concern lies elsewhere” indeed, since in post-flood days, he wasn’t concerned about some tall-tale and that tall-tale was that is that Num 13:33 is:
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
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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