Stephen Davey answered Who Were the Nephilim? Fallen Angels, Giants and Genesis 6 at the Wisdom International site which, he, “began his collegiate studies at Liberty University in 1976, he majored in Bible and minored in World History. He finished his studies at Tennessee Temple…earned his first master’s degree (MDiv) at Detroit Seminary and then his second master’s in theology (STM) from Dallas Seminary…plant[ed] The Shepherd’s Church…”
Wisdom International:
…has shared the Bible-teaching ministry of Stephen Davey, built on the belief that God’s Word transforms lives. Stephen teaches Scripture clearly, accurately, and without compromise to help listeners know God, think biblically, and live wisely.
He believes the unfiltered truth of God’s Word still has powerful impact today. Many people chase the world’s ideas, even when spiritually searching, and don’t know where to find real answers.
Even believers often lack solid teaching and spiritual growth because they aren’t consistently grounded in Scripture. Wisdom International exists to change that—proclaiming biblical truth with clarity, boldness, and practical relevance. That’s Stephen’s calling, and our mission.
Davey tells us, “Fallen angels possessed wicked men, and those men took wives” for which there is literally zero indication and that view essentially does not even make a faint blip on the radar of historical interpretations of that which I term the Gen 6 affair. In fact, there is no indication that Angels ever possess anyone—nor could they.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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, he appealed to that man-made tradition so as to have his Angel view cake and eat the rejection of the Angel view since he asserts, “The Nephilim were human. They were not half angel.”
But why opt for such a strained, essentially unhistorical, hybrid of a view? Because he wanted to asset, “Angels cannot reproduce, and the Bible never says they can. But demons were involved.” That, “Angels cannot reproduce” is a mere assertion. That, “the Bible never says they can” can only be said after rejecting the Angel view. And that, “demons were involved” is arbitrarily inserted since he has told us nothing about demons as of yet: he told us, “Fallen angels possessed wicked men” so perhaps he is playing word-swap between fallen Angels and demons (yet, demons did not exist pre-flood).
Stephen Davey quotes the Gen 6 affair thusly:
“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. Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1–4)
He comments, “Genesis 4 and 5 have just traced two family lines, the line of Cain and the godly line of Seth. Both descend from Adam. No people lived on earth before him” yet, he is asserting and artificially inserting, “the godly line of Seth” since there is no indication of that, and juxtaposed it with the—what?—mere, “line of Cain”?
To the question, “Were the Nephilim fallen angels?” he answers, “No. The Nephilim were human. The fallen angels were ‘the sons of God’ who stood behind them.” And that Nephilim were fallen Angels is another view that essentially made no blip.
He then reviews, “three views of who those sons of God were” beginning with, “Angels fathered children. This view says fallen angels cohabited with women and produced a race of half-angel, half-human beings. It is the most popular view, and Scripture rules it out” but the only reason he has given us for agreeing with his conclusion is merely asserting, “Fallen angels possessed wicked men” merely asserting, “Nephilim were human” merely asserting, “Angels cannot reproduce”—and merely asserting, “the godly line of Seth.”
The next view is, “Seth’s sons married ungodly women. This view says the sons of God were godly men from Seth’s line who married ungodly women. It is hard for me to imagine godly men suddenly doing that, although it certainly can happen.” Good point, that view tells us that the godly line of Seth were not really godly since they were actually such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that is rather odd.
Having asserted, “Fallen angels possessed wicked men” he now tells us, “Demons possessed men. This is the view I believe. Demons were involved here, but they worked through human men” so indeed, he was word swapping and now has the problem of appealing to beings that did not yet exist—for a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Oddly, Stephen Davey then affirms that it was Angels, “The phrase ‘sons of God’ is used in the Old Testament for angelic beings (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). I believe it is used here for angels who fell in rebellion against God along with their leader, Satan. Satan’s rebellion came first. Ever since, these fallen angels have tried to corrupt mankind in any way they can.” Yes, “angels who fell,” not demons—not yet.
At this point, he hyperlinked the term, “See what angels look like in the Bible” and that article is so problematic that I will have to pause our review to add a review of that one.
It is asserted, “Angels in the Bible look like whatever God sends them to look like…The cherubim and seraphim around God’s throne have wings, and some have four faces” which is a category error that violates the law of identity since, by definition, Angels are Angels, Cherubim are Cherubim, and Seraphim are Seraphim: they differ from one another in at least three ways 1) job title, 2) job function, and 3) different morphologies.
He notes, “Our culture has made angels soft and sentimental. Scripture never does. When an angel shows up in the Bible, people fall on their faces. The first words out of the angel’s mouth are usually ‘Fear not’” but does not contextualize that such is the case when someone is alone and suddenly, someone else is with them so they get scared: that is the context of each time they say that, it is not about their look.
He then myopically asserts:
Angels are created spirits. Hebrews calls them “ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). A spirit has no flesh and bones of its own. So in their normal state, angels are invisible to us.
When God wants an angel to be seen, the angel takes on a visible form. And Scripture shows us several very different forms.
By, “several very different forms” he means mistakenly correlating Cherubim and Seraphim and also the likes of, “Here is the angel who rolled away the stone at the empty tomb: ‘His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow’ (Matthew 28:3)” but that is not about his shape.
That Angels are, “‘ministering spirits’…(Heb. 1:14)” but that is just one single poorly translated English version.
Search the BibleGateway site specifically for Heb 1:7, then click on, “Hebrews 1:7 in all English translations” just below the verse, and you will find that 43 out of 64 versions rightly have Angels as, “winds” rather than, “spirits.” And looking at v 7 first is key since v. 14 plays off of it and must also be translated as, “winds” to be consistent.
Now, the difference is translation is not because translators just flipped a coin, It is because Heb is quoting (and then playing off of) Psalm 104:4 (do the same in BibleGateway for that one: the stats for which are 46 having, “winds” out of 58) and the entire context of the Psalm demands that we translate as, “winds” and not, “spirits.”
Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
He answers, “Do angels have wings?” with, “Some do” but they do not, he is just mixed his Cherubim and Seraphim category error into that answer.
Interestingly, he noted, “when angels appear as men, the Bible never mentions wings at all” but that is just because that is how they look: just like human males and he is missing that due to not doing his homework, relying on one single poorly translated modern English word, and building his Angelology on assertions and assumptions.
As for, “Do angels appear as men?” the biblical answer is yes, but only since that is what their appearance is like ontologically. He answers, “Yes. Many times…” and merely asserted, “angels take human form” for which there is no indication. He is forced to say something like that due to his faulty premise that they are spirits, he then reads of them appearing human, so he cannot accept every single physical description of Angels, and fills a gap that he himself created by merely asserting, “angels take human form” so he solved a non-problem with un-biblical Angelology.
He went on to write, “Jesus also said that in the resurrection people ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven’ (Matthew 22:30). Angels do not marry and they do not reproduce” but that is faulty and so it leads to other faults since he went on directly to say, “I explain why that matters in who the Nephilim were.”
Note the difference between Jesus’ words and Stephen Davey’s, “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” and, “Angels do not marry”—and his artificial addition of, “and they do not reproduce” is fallacious since, tragically, someone can reproduce without being married.
Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven” (as per the KJV).
So, not all Angels at all times in all places at in all circumstances—generically, “Angels do not marry”—but the loyal ones, “of God” and, “in heaven” 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.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled review which we continue with his statement, “I believe fallen angels” aka demons as per his assertions, “literally possessed unbelieving mankind…The offspring of these demon-possessed men included the Nephilim” but also included whom?
He answers, “Can angels reproduce with humans?” via the same point I just reviewed, he again quoted Jesus’ very specific statements and generalized them, “No. Angels cannot reproduce. Jesus said, ‘For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven’ (Matthew 22:30).”
Yet, after telling us Angels are spirits, after swapping fallen ones with demons, after telling us, “Angels do not marry” he tells us, “That does not just mean angels do not get married. It means they cannot fulfill one of the primary functions of marriage, which is reproduction” so now we see why he artificially inserted that man-made tradition into it.
He asserts, “Angels were not created with the ability to produce seed. They carry no DNA that could unite with a woman’s DNA to produce a child” but there is no indication of that and again, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such is not their ontology so why would they only be missing the key features of the male anatomy?
But right after that, he swaps words again with, “So the idea of half-demon, half-human creatures belongs in the comic books, not in the Bible. Nowhere does Scripture say angels can procreate” granted, “half-demon, half-human creatures belongs in the comic books, not in the Bible” but as for, “Nowhere does Scripture say angels can procreate” again, that is a statement he only made after misrepresenting Angels, and demons, and Nephilim, and rejecting the Angel view.
He then swapped back to Angels, “How, then, did these fallen angels have children? They did it indirectly. Certain fallen angels found women attractive. They wanted to experience intimacy and procreation. So they possessed mortal men who took those women as wives. The children were fully human, born to human fathers under demonic influence” which is a man-made tradition.
He then answers, “Were the Nephilim giants?” and tells us, “They may well have been” before telling us: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What is his usage? Do those two usages agree?
He notes:
The meaning of the Hebrew word nephilim is uncertain. Many connect it to the Hebrew verb for “fall.” The Greek translation of the Old Testament rendered it “giants,” and the King James Version followed that reading.
So you can understand Nephilim as a reference to physical giants. You can also read it as famous men or mighty leaders. Frankly, they might have been both. Genesis 6:4 calls them “the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” That describes power and fame. Scripture gives no height for them.
Giants and Nephilim are not simply two words for one thing. The Nephilim lived before the flood. The giants Israel faced lived centuries after it.
Moses calls the Anakim “a people great and tall” (Deuteronomy 9:2). Goliath’s “height was six cubits and a span” (1 Samuel 17:4). That is more than nine feet tall. See how David met him in David and Goliath.
Goliath had relatives too. Four more warriors “were descended from the giants in Gath” (2 Samuel 21:22). David’s men struck them down one by one.
It cannot be that case that, “The Greek translation of the Old Testament rendered it ‘giants’” since giants is a modern English word. That version rendered it as gigantes or gigas which refers to the Greek false goddess Gaia and with the former meaning earth-born—see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Thus no, we cannot commit a word-concept fallacy by merely reading the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants and concluding, “Nephilim as a reference to physical giants.”
So, we got the answer to his usage which is 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, his usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage since therein, 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.
But after telling us, “Nephilim…a reference to physical giants” he wrote, “Scripture gives no height for them” so how can it be a reference to physical something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average?
Yet, he is right about one thing since 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 pop-Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
He wrote, “Giants and Nephilim are not simply two words for one thing” which is tricky:
Contextually, “Giants and Nephilim are…simply two words for one thing” since it is a rendering of Nephilim and then Nephilim.
Contextual to the Gen 6 affair, “Giants and Nephilim are not simply two words for one thing” since post-flood giants refers to Rephaim—with one exception to which we shall come below.
He wrote, “The Nephilim lived before the flood. The giants Israel faced lived centuries after it” indeed, Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there is zero correlation between them.
He notes, “Moses calls the Anakim ‘a people great and tall’ (Deuteronomy 9:2)” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
He myopically added, “Goliath’s ‘height was six cubits and a span’ (1 Samuel 17:4). That is more than nine feet tall” but for some odd reason, he did not mention 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. So, that is the preponderance of the earliest data (the Greek LXX Codex Venetus actually has 5 cubits and a span).
He added, “Goliath had relatives too. Four more warriors ‘were descended from the giants in Gath’ (2 Samuel 21:22)” and, “were descended from the giants in Gath” means, “were descended from the Repha in Gath.”
He answers, “Is there Nephilim DNA or a Nephilim bloodline today?” by noting:
No. No one will ever find angel DNA in a human bloodline. Angels have none to pass on. The Nephilim were human, and every one of them died in the flood.
Moses writes, “Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark” (Genesis 7:23).
Peter says God “preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others” (2 Peter 2:5). Eight people survived. No Nephilim was on the ark. Read how it happened in the global flood.
Demons are still active today. But the angels who sinned in Genesis 6 are not roaming the earth. They are held “in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6).
He word swapped again but it is a fair enough point except for a technicality I will add based on my Demons Ex Machina article, “the angels who sinned in Genesis 6 are” indeed still, “roaming the earth” while their physical bodies, “are held” their spirits roam the Earth as demons.
As for, “What happened to the Nephilim after the flood?” Stephen Davey notes:
The Nephilim of Genesis 6 died in the flood. Two verses raise the question. Genesis 6:4 says the Nephilim were on the earth “in those days, and also afterward.” And ten of the twelve spies told Israel, “there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers” (Numbers 13:33).
But Moses calls their account “a bad report” (Numbers 13:32). Frightened men described the tall Anakim with the most terrifying name they knew. Caleb and Joshua saw the same people and trusted God instead.
Forty-five years later, Caleb asked for the very hill country where the Anakim lived. I tell that story in my lesson on the conquest of Canaan.
Jesus said, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). Judgment came in Noah’s day, and judgment is coming again. But God still provides a way of rescue. Noah had an ark. The fallen angels have no Savior. You do. Trust Him today.
The way that post-flood Nephilologists, “raise the question” via Gen 6:4 is to do exactly what Davey did, they cut it into pieces, only quote a few words, and cut off the part that tell us to what days it is referring. And, “in those days, and also afterward” do not refer to the flood—we already saw the full verse when he quoted 6:1-4 above.
He rightly specified, “ten of the twelve spies” since those were the unreliable ones whom God rebuked. Indeed, “Moses calls their account ‘a bad report’” and Anakim have nothing to do with Nephilim.
Anyone appealing to Num 13:33 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 does not even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable bad/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—which I am currently updating.
Now, my review has been premised on sharpening iron with iron and I find that when we do that, someone tends to get cut.
Let us conclude this review by having a look at the comments section—seems that Davey did not reply to anyone.
Mark Wilson says:
Very interesting topic. I’m wondering though, can fallen angels produce sperm and reproduce with a human being on earth, even though “regular” angels can’t? So, could Satan have relations with a human woman and produce a child? That’s what I’m a little confused about. Thanks!
I already noted that there is no reason to believe that Angels look like human males but are missing key features of the male anatomy. As for, “could Satan have relations with a human woman and produce a child?” we do not know but since he is a Cherub (Ezek 28) then perhaps not.
Dwight Osborne says:
There’s no problem with the view that fallen angels could procreate. When they came toi earth, they took on human flesh and thus also took on human function. Hence, they were absolutely able to procreate. Jude 1:6, 7 absolutely confirms this view when the angels are said toi have gone after strange fleshin similarity to those in Sodom; strange flesh for Sodom was men withmen and women with women. Likewise with the fallen angels, strange fleshwas humans. It doesn’t happen often but I;’m sorry to say Pastor Davey, you have missed the boat this time.
This is like what I noted about inventing a problem and then assuming it was solved due to un-biblical Angelology when it comes to, “they took on human flesh…”
I would put it thusly: 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 is only a one-time fall of Angels in the Bible. So, if they are not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we have no idea to what sin they are referring.
Jacquline says:
What if the Fallen Ones took a physical shape of reptiles that DID have sperm or DNA? Like almost a beastiality thing that created Nephilim?
Someone can What if anything they want but there is zero context for inserting, “physical shape of reptiles” into the Gen 6 affair.
David says:
Gen.6:4 says that there were nephilim in in those days and after that so that would imply that after God destroyed the world there were still nephilim so why destroy the world if it would accomplish nothing? And why punish people and giants for what demons did? If they could procreate.
See what I meant about cutting Gen 6:4 into pieces—and just at the key point? It does not say, “those days and after” period so we can insert un-biblical fantasies about, “there were still nephilim” but that was critical of Davey since the fundamental question is, “why destroy the world if it would accomplish nothing?” or accomplish some things but fail to accomplish ridding the world of one of the key aspects of the corruption that spread abroad.
Alice says:
Could the fallen angels portray themselves as the ancient Gods of the countries,,like Zeus, Thor, Rah, etc and then mated with human woman. So many legends wonder if they actually really exited. Maybe they gave humans a lot of knowledge of the universe. Like how to build towers and pyramids and mummies. Any comments. It seems like a lot of countries had these ancient dirties.
I do not see why they would not be able to do that.
Shirley says:
This answered my question about these creatures plainly, easily aI appreciate the various and concise, to the point insight 👍. Thank you, sincerely Minister Shirley Yarbrough.
And this is the problem with people reading one’s work that knows less than one does, “This answered my question” with un-biblical man-made traditions and various fallacies but Shirley is convinced she learned something new, something biblical.
Dwight Osborne says:
The nephilim or giants were the descendants of the “sons of God” (fallen angels) who mated with human women in Genesis 6. So many erroneously claim angels can’t procreate but that’s based on a faulty interpretation of Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25. Those passages deal with what occurs in Heaven but Heaven isn’t under consideration here; we’re considering what happened on earth. If the sons of Seth were what was meant then the writer of the account, Noah, would have clearly delineated them as the SONS OF SETH. and not the son of God. Though the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch aren’t inspired Scripture they nevertheless reflect tht it was indeed the fallen angels. And as Genesis 18 and other sections of inspired Scripture reflect, when angels visited people they took on human flesh and as a result also took on human function. And those who reject the fallen angel view are calling Jude and Peter liars who wrote of the angelic sin in Jude 6-8 and 2 Peter 2:4. The Septuagint and the early church fathers, among them Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertulliann, Lactantius all held to the angel view. The Jewish (and Roman) historian Josephus wrote in his history the angel view. And even the ancient Greek, Babylonian and other cultures had their gods coming to earth to mate with women which they obviously borrowed from the true and accurate account of the Bible just as they borrowed the flood account from the true and accurate source.
Solid points. I would only note that it gets us into tricky territory when we demand what God was required to have inspired and so what Moses was required to write in terms of, “the account…would have clearly delineated them as the SONS OF SETH” since in any language any one thing can be referred to by various terms. See, Angel view deniers can simply retort that the account…would have clearly delineated them as the Angels.
As for, “obviously borrowed from the true and accurate account of the Bible,” pre-Tower of Babel humanity lived in relative proximity but dispersed thereafter taking with them what was commonly known and shared history which eventually came to be called myth and legend.
Perren, THOMAS T says:
I can clearly see you are not a true believer. Your suggestion that the BIBLE is not all true Betrayed you.
I see no reason to assert he is not a true believer and especially not based on, “Your” mere, “suggestion” mind you, “that the BIBLE is not all true.” If that is meant to say that Stephen Davey denies that parts of the Bible record falsehoods, ever single true believer should affirm that. For example, the Bible records Satan’s lies: it is true that he lied but his lies were not true and so the BIBLE is not all true since it records many falsehoods.
Masara from Essex says:
Nephilim are ancient souls that predate Heaven and Hell as they come from the original source of creation. They also possess Angelic and Demonic powers and were created for Battle specifically spiritual warfare.
Masara asserts, “predate Heaven and Hell…from the original source” but Gen 6:1 tells us from what time they come, “When men began to multiply upon the face of the Earth and daughters were born to them.” As for, “Angelic and Demonic powers” there is the anachronistic insertion of demons again and as for, “created for Battle specifically spiritual warfare” one of the aspects of spiritual warfare is that people have invented un-biblical tall-tales about them at least since the evil report and 100% of the top-pop-Nephilologists imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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