Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman’s book is fully titled Giants on Record: America’s Hidden History, Secrets in the Mounds and the Smithsonian Files.
The book notes, “Jim Vieira is a stonemason, researcher and writer” of books and articles, having given a TEDx talk, “is star of the History Channel TV shows…”
“Hugh Newman is an explorer, antiquarian and author…guest on History Channel’s Ancient Aliens…runs regular tours and expeditions…writes for numerous magazines and has a Bachelor of Arts Honours Degree (BA Hons) in Film and Journalism from London Guildhall University.”
Due to the title of the book, Giants on Record, some key questions are: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles? What is Jim Vieira’s and Hugh Newman’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Fascinatingly, I have asked those key questions to literally hundreds of people who go on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about, “giants” and 99% cannot even reply.
Yet, even though the term giant(s) appears in the book 842 times, we are never told his usage. He employs the term enormous 29 times, huge 36 times, tall 2277 times, massive 31 times, etc. the issue with which is that those terms are just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
Writing in such a vaguely generically subjectively multi-usage manner has two affects: 1) it forces the reader to have to attempt to discern the usage at any given usage and 2) it allows the author to make assertions and correlate things that my not go together due to employing a usus loquendi: referring to the usage of terms which may differ from technical meanings/definitions—the term giants is a flaccid designator.
Not surprisingly, Jim Vieira was also described as having, “collated over 1,500 newspapers and scholarly accounts of giant skeletons being found in North America.” I filled a chapter of my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales with such newspaper accounts and they are typically exactly what newspaper accounts are, which are reports: so and so claims to have found thus and such on this day yet, without any follow-up. I also do not go by that if it is in the news then, by golly, it must be true.
Vieira/Newman wrote:
In Europe there are the Ice Giants of Nordic tradition, the Tuatha de Danaan and Formorians of old Ireland, Hu Gadarn of Celtic tradition, Cronus and the Titans of Greece and the one-eyed Cyclops of Homer’s tales.
Further afield there are the Thunderous Rakshasas of the Indian Ramayana, the Gigantes of the Middle East, and even in the Bible there are matter-of-fact accounts of mighty warriors, and tribes such as the Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim and the Canaanites. Some examples, like King Og of Bashan and Goliath—who was defeated by David—even had their heights described in detail, and were attributed as the builders of megalithic temples in the Bible lands.
See, any reference to subjectively unusual height is a reference to giants and can be mashed together.
Keeping their context of 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 the modern English word giants is), let us review:
Nephilim: The dirty little secret is that since we have 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.
But what of, “even had their heights described in detail” well, they may be relying on the unreliable since reference is made to their height in Num 13:33, “we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” which is not, “heights described in detail.”
Most importantly, anyone who appeals to it (as 100% of pop-Nephilologists do and exclusively so since they have no other way to assert giant Nephilim) needs to mention that they are 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. And now Haze needs to invent un-biblical tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, any of which will imply that God failed, must have missed the loophole you figured out, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Rephaim: the only contextually relevant thing we are told about them is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days. Thus, no, “heights described in detail.”
Anakim: they were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe so the same applies to them.
Thus, no, “heights described in detail.”
Canaanites: this is a bit tricky since that seems to generally refer to anyone living in Cannan but also seems to also specifically refer to Canaan natives. For example, the first and reliable report in Num 13 lists whom they actually really saw in Canaan, “the descendants of Anak…The Amalekites…The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites…And the Canaanites.”
The evil report asserted, “all the people that we saw in it are of great height,” which is not, “heights described in detail” nor is there indication of even such a vague assertion.
Og: we have no physical description of him thus, no, “heights described in detail”—for details, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Goliath: 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 is the preponderance of the earliest data. We might say, “heights described in detail” but detailed in which manuscripts?
As for, “were attributed as the builders of megalithic temples in the Bible lands” I am sure that they did but attributed whence and by whom?
Thus, “heights described in detail” is only somewhat applicable to one single person: where are all of the giants?
Vieira/Newman wrote:
…debate over the origins of the North American giants has been going on for nearly 200 years. Native American mythology, the latest scientific research, genetic data, and ethnological research is shedding light on these mysteries, and the enigmatic Denisovans, Nephilim, and visitors from other ancient cultures may have been involved.
Referring to the genetic data of Nephilim, of who we cannot even confirm we even have skeletons, is rather odd: how would we know what we have derived their genetic data, from whence would we have gotten it, etc.?
As for, “Native American mythology” well, that is generic since Native American refers to various tribes/nations and Native American mythology refers to various lines of oral tradition passed on for centuries/millennia—for details, see my post Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found?
Interestingly, they wrote, “The origin of the Iroquois has been lost in the depths of time, but during the 1700s their descendants related stories to Catholic priests that they came from the east after being destroyed by a great flood. The possible relation to the legendary Atlantis” or Noah’s flood—on which the Atlantis story may have been based.
We are told, “The Pericúes were thus described: ‘The missionary descriptions indicated that the men were naked and the women wore grass skirts, and they were very tall and slim’” (Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution, 1894. pg. 610). Thus, whatever, “tall” subjective to Spaniards.
Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman wrote:
…the biblical ‘Watchers’ who were said to have overseen humanity and seeded a legendary race of giants called the ‘Nephilim’. As haplogroup X has also been found in this area, this may prove fruitful for those that believe the so-called Nephilim made their way from the Bible lands to the coasts of North America.
Genesis 6:4:
“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.”
This passage from the Bible is talking about the offspring of “sons of God” who are called the ‘Nephilim’—offspring of the legendary ‘Watchers’ and human females.
If you Google ‘giant skeletons’, more often than not the word Nephilim comes up, with webpages stating the giants of North America are in fact the very same giants featured in the
Bible.
Various authors such as Steve Quayle, Fritz Zimmerman, and L.A. Marzulli are convinced that the North American giants originated from the Middle East, or the ‘Bible Lands,’ and they were pushed out by the warring Israelites spearheaded by Moses. These giants then fled and settled in America.
We are perhaps being too simplistic here, as all these authors and other giantologists who promote the idea of the Nephilim have actually carried out some very interesting research, but first, we must determine who exactly Nephilim were.
The word Nephilim originally appeared in the Torah, or Hebrew Bible—our Old Testament—and roughly translates as ‘Those who fell, those who came down, those who left one place to go to another.’ It does not mean ‘Fallen Angels.’
The name is also used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest according to Numbers 13:33. Nephilim is also a general term used to describe multiple giant races and individuals in the Bible.
For example, the Amalekites, Amorites, Anakim, Ashdothites, Aviums, Avites, Canaanites, Caphtorim, Ekronites, Emins, Eshkalonites, Gazathites, Geshurites, Gibeonites, Giblites, Girgashites, Gittites, Hittites, Hivites, Horim, Horites, Jebusites, Kadmonites, Kenizzites, Maachathites, Manassites, Nephilim, Perizzites, Philistines, Rephaim, Sidonians, Zamzummim, Zebusites and Zuzim.
There are also 22 individual giants mentioned by name:
Adonizedec —King of Jerusalem; Agag—King of the Amalakites; Ahiman; Amalek; Arba; Beelesath; Gog and Magog; Gogmagog; Goliath; Hoham—King of Hebron; Horam—King of Gezer; Jabin—King of Hazor; Jobab—King of Madon; Lahmi; Nimrod; Og of Bashan; Ogias—Og’s father; Perizzites; Sheshai; Sihon—King of the Amorites; Sippai and
Talmai.
Some notable giants include King Og of Bashan who was the last of the Rephaim (a Hebrew name for giants), and an Amorite King. He had a iron bedstead (or sarcophagus) measuring nine cubits in length and four cubits in width, which is 13.5 ft by 6 ft according to the standard cubit of a man, that would make him somewhere between 9 to 13 feet in height.
Goliath and his three brothers of Gath, are known as sons of the Nephilim. After killing Goliath, David and his brothers hunted down Goliath’s brothers and became the first literal
giant hunters in history!
Let us review.
I can only imagine that they are referring to Watchers due to being influenced by 1 Enoch which is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
With reference to Angels, Watcher appears twice in the Bible, both in the Book of Daniel, and is simply a Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD) a.k.a. for Malakim/Angels and nothing is said of, “have overseen humanity and seeded…” even if the former is a fair enough speculation and the latter is applicable by reading that word back to the bene ha Elohim of what I term the Gen 6 affair.
Biblically contextually, “giants called the ‘Nephilim’” would mean, “Nephilim’ called the ‘Nephilim.’” See, their usage of giants is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average so the answer to if that agrees with the usage in English Bibles is no.
That is because the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not 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.
For details, see my linguistics book “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.”
The same issue of, “genetic data” corresponds to haplogroups. There is also the issue of that if, “so-called Nephilim made their way from the Bible lands to the coasts of North America” then it was during pre-flood days since they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
“If you Google ‘giant skeletons’, more often than not the word Nephilim comes up” due to that pop-Nephilology is currently literally run by people who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.
Case in point:
Steve Quayle: the plagiarist and evolutionist who also commits category errors about Nephilim and Rephaim, for example, since he is not familiar enough with the relevant data.
Fritz Zimmerman: who merely arbitrarily slaps the click-bait term Nephilim into his books and Facebook posts. And when asked about his usage of giants and what makes him think that what he asserts are Nephilim bones and skeletons, he replies with childish taunts by calling me names and threatens to block me.
L.A. Marzulli: who is another pop-Nephilologists who, for example, claims that Nephilim were giants and claims to have their skulls but can only ever show us regular sized skulls.
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.
So, they are, “convinced that the North American” something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average, “originated from the Middle East, or the ‘Bible Lands’” specifically based on being, “pushed out by the warring Israelites spearheaded by Moses” even when there is literally zero reliable indication of that and only one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked to back their assertions.
Thus, yes, “We are perhaps being too simplistic.”
Yet, this is not even based on, “who exactly Nephilim were” but on when they ceased to be and that is during the flood.
Indeed, “The word Nephilim…does not mean ‘Fallen Angels’”: I am unsure who ever even claimed such a thing.
So, “The name is also used in reference to” something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average, “who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest” and note the appeal to the only source to which they can appeal: one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Now, if, “Nephilim is also a general term used to describe multiple” something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average, “races and individuals in the Bible” why then are there only a grand total of two sentences in which it is used—with only one being post-flood?
The assertion is that, “Nephilim is also a general term used to describe…Amalekites, Amorites, Anakim, Ashdothites, Aviums, Avites, Canaanites, Caphtorim, Ekronites, Emins, Eshkalonites, Gazathites, Geshurites, Gibeonites, Giblites, Girgashites, Gittites, Hittites, Hivites, Horim, Horites, Jebusites, Kadmonites, Kenizzites, Maachathites, Manassites, Nephilim, Perizzites, Philistines, Rephaim, Sidonians, Zamzummim, Zebusites and Zuzim.”
Yet, the one and only time it can be said that, “Nephilim is also a general term used to describe” anyone else it would be the single case of Anakim: and that is only if 1) we grant the evil report and 2) only from non-LXX versions.
There is literally not even a hint that any of those other groups are referred to as Nephilim.
And I will throw in that, “Anakim…Rephaim…Zamzummim…and Zuzim” is really a list of one since Zamzummim is just an a.k.a. for Zuzim, and visa versa, and that is an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim were like a clan of that tribe.
As for the others, we do not even have a hint of a physical description of them—with the exception of Amorites if we want to count metaphors.
Amos 2:9 says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.”
He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation.
In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they are only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.
As for the, “22 individual giants,” the only one for whom we have some physical description is Goliath.
Besides just making up stuff, in some cases they seem to be making this sort of typical pop-Nephilology error when they read texts such as this one:
…Ishbi-benob, one of the descendants of the giants…Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph, who was one of the descendants of the giants…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 descended from the giants…descended from the giants in Gath… (2 Samuel 21).
I know it is not as exciting but this is what is behind those exciting terms:
…Ishbi-benob, one of the descendants of the Rephaim…Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Saph, who was one of the descendants of the Rephaim…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 descended from the Rephaim…descended from the Rephaim in Gath…”
That was identifying tribal affiliation, not anything about height whatsoever with the exception of the generically vague reference to one, “man of great stature” subjective to 5.0-5.3ft.
Incidentally, that reference to one single Repha having, “six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot” has resulted in pop-Nephilologists asserting that extra digits is a Nephilim trait: that is how incoherent they are, they make a category error by mashing Rephaim into Nephilim and aggrandize one statement about one person into a trait of all such Rephaim-Nephilim or however they mischaracterize it.
Realizing they asserted that Og was a (their misuse of) giant with zero evidence, they attempt to derive a, “9 to 13 feet height” based on a, “bedstead (or sarcophagus).” Well, the context is that he was a king so we cannot just play mathematical ratio-based games with numbers since he was not an average guy but lived a lavish lifestyle.
As for sarcophagus, that is an even looser metric since we have examples of Egyptian sarcophagi that were very large but were found to have been made to house three skeletons rather that one giant one, we also know that King Tut’s sarcophagus was much larger than he was.
On it does, it is a simple case of a non-sequitur to conclude Og’s height based on such objects is based on various assumptions. Moreover, indications are that the bed was a ritual object, not something on which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
As for, “Goliath and his three brothers” they were actually his sons, “of Gath, are known” by whom, “as sons of the Nephilim”? It can only be by pop-Nephilologists telling un-biblical tall-tales or by some sort of (mis)application of the evil report in non-LXX versions.
Thus, we can see that, “became the first literal giant hunters in history!” is an exciting thing to assert but is deeply misguided.
Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman next turn to:
The non-canonical (Apocrypha) books of Baruch 3:22–28 and Sirach 16:6–9 indicate that giants (Greek; gigantes, gigantōn, respectively) previously lived in the land of Canaan before Moses conquered them.
This is referring to when Moses was heading-up to the “Promised Land” during the Exodus. They moved north along the west coast of Israel and up into Lebanon. They met with giants and eventually defeated them, but where did the giants find exile?
They noted, “giants…gigantes, gigantōn” but did not bother telling us that those Greek terms mean earth-born. Of course they would turn to apocryphal texts since such tall-tales get more and more exciting as time marches on—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts and my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
By now you know that, “met with giants” biblically contextually means, “met with Rephaim” (et al., actually: sans Nephilim, of course).
Right on schedule, they appealed to, “Amorites, at least one of whom could be described
thus: ‘whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was as strong as the oaks’” ending the quote there and not interacting with it except to make the exciting assertion, “Amorites were giants.”
That, they add, “is supported by the report of the spies whom Moses sent through the land of Canaan. The Amorites were one of the groups they saw, and they claimed that ‘all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature’” which I already noted is a mere assertion (one of five made by those 10 unreliable guys). And note how the linguistics work (or rather, do not work), “height…like…cedars” supported by, “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
As for, “Joshua and Caleb did not challenge the size” they recognize that the two reliable guys opposed the 10 unreliable ones. Now, Num 13 is not a transcript of a formally moderated debate so it is really a matter of we have no indication that Joshua and Caleb did not challenge the size and it does not matter if they did or did not: hyper-fixating on height is the stuff of which something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average pop-Nephilologists are obsessed.
The text has Joshua and Caleb as faithful, loyal, reliable, and trustworthy and the 10 as unfaithful, disloyal, unreliable and tellers of impossible tall-tales who are rebuked by God.
Their takeaway is, “The giants obviously were not wiped out by Moses and his army, as around 600 AD, further reports of over-eight-foot warriors emerged in the Greek histories” which is starting with fantasy tall-tales, following with a metaphor, then vaguely generic statements concluding in, “over-eight-foot” and that is how the pop-Nephilology shuffle works (or rather, does not work).
The aforementioned L.A. Marzulli since in his tall-tales, “not only do the American giants get put forward as Nephilim, but the elongated skulls discovered in Peru do too—even though they are not giant in any way” the latter which is a great point since I have asked dozens of Marzulli’s fans why he assert that Nephilim were giants and asserts he has their skulls but can only ever show us regular sized skulls.
They then appeal to the plagiarist and evolutionist Steve Quayle whom, they tell us, “was the first modern author to propose that giants from all parts of the world are the offspring of the biblical giants” which is an incoherent phrase that is virtually meaningless.
As with most if not all pop-Nephilologists, Quayle is not familiar enough with the relevant data, and categorical thinking, to distinguish between Nephilim and Rephaim.
We are then told of an actual piece of evidence:
…a curious artifact was witnessed in 1877 that does suggest a direct connection to the Bible Lands (that any Nephilim advocate should use as part of their evidence).
After his surrender, Chief Joseph, a renowned Nez Perce leader handed over a small pendent to General Miles and after a few years it was inspected and turned out to be an ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet.
It was translated by Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago who found that it was a sales receipt for a lamb dating back to 2042 BC.
“The chief said that the tablet had been passed down in his family for many generations, and that they had inherited it from their white ancestors. Chief Joseph said that white men had come among his ancestors long ago.”
Granting that it dates to 2042 BC, how does a Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet from then have anything to do with pre-flood Nephilim?
Or all we know, it was gotten from Viking, “white ancestors.”
They next get into, “The Watchers and the Nunnehim” wherein they state, “The Nephilim and the Watchers from the Bible have their counterparts among the Algonquian, Iroquoian, and Siouan speaking peoples, and possibly the Muskogeon” due to, “traditions of the great conclave of Native American culture…They all apparently have their own versions of the Watchers and the Nephilim” given the watered down version that Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman employ as a catch-all for anyone vaguely generic subjectively unusually taller by some or another level above the parochial average: however mean is meant by, “Many of them were said” by someone and repeated in oral tradition, “to have been” whatever, “giants in stature” means.
That pertained to that, “The Nunnehim are believed to be the survivors of a great country in the ocean to the east. Their origins are said to be in the Atlantic basin going back many thousands of years. When the basin began to flood under the water of melting glaciers, these blessed people moved into the Americas as well as Europe and the Mediterranean, bringing with them the sacred spiritual technologies of the Antediluvian world” thus, they cannot have been Nephilim and a survival for Nephilim, “flood under the water of melting glaciers” (which Vieira and Newman are clearly correlating with Noah’s flood), “these blessed people moved” so as to survive contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) since that is how many times we are told who survived the flood but Nephilim are not on any of those lists nor is there any possible indication of a return of them in any way, shape, or from.
They note, “This tradition of the Nunnehi and the Watchers predates any known outside influence including the Nephilim of the Bible” which makes sense since that tale seems to have no correlation to the Gen 6 affair at all.
And that is all of the relevant content to my context of actual Nephilology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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