Angela Michelle Schultz wrote an article titled What Is a Nephilim? and begins by noting:
The term Nephilim, derived from the Greek word nephal, which means “to fall,” is mentioned twice in the bible; once before the flood in Genesis 6, then again in Numbers 13 after the flood.
That they are, “mentioned twice” is, purposefully or not, a very important qualifier—stand by.
She refers to, “what precisely a Nephilim is” and which coupled with the title, “What Is a Nephilim?” offers an opportunity for a technical point of linguistics: those statements should either be “what precisely ARE [or more precisely, were] Nephilim is…What Is ARE/WERE Nephilim?” or, “what precisely a Nephil is…What Is a Nephil?” since the, “im” ending makes a Hebrew word male plural but the English, “a” implies one.
For more, see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Angela Michelle Schultz notes, “Some non-biblical views are that the Nephilim are space aliens” but they can’t be, on any view, since they were born on Earth.
She then outlines four perspectives, “dependent on how they view who the ‘sons of God’ are” which she begins by noting, “Since the King James Version uses that term, many associate them with mere giants” but she didn’t tell us what, “that term” is. Yet, regardless, we can’t know who associates them with “giants” without knowing what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s her usage? Do those two usages agree?
Well, Angela Michelle Schultz does elucidate:
This translation was partly because Jerome’s early Latin translation used the term Gigantes. The Septuagint, the translation used around the time of Christ, also used the Greek word Gigantes. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Nephilim was abnormally large, regardless of your viewpoint.
Note that the missing data point makes her conclusion faulty since it’s based on a word-concept fallacy. She merely implies that Gigantes means whatever the subjective term, “abnormally large” really means.
The LXX came before the Latin and gigantes merely means earth-born. Thus, no reference to Nephilim in any language from any time implies anything about size.
In fact, 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.
When pop-Nephilologists employ such watered down terminology, it allows them to do what Shultz did which is to make assumptions and then apply them: she noted that the word Nephilim came from to fall but centuries later, since gigantes/giants refers to whatever abnormally large means, she can then take the tactic of referring to anything that’s subjectively abnormally large and drag it into the pop-Nephilology black-hole.
Thus, Angela Michelle Schultz notes:
Although later claimed to have been a hoax, this giant/nephilim remains were found in San Diego. The Smithsonian bought it in 1895.
The image is one that I used for this book of mine:
The first perspective she covers is:
The Fallen Angels View is one of the most popular views. Many believe that sons of God refer to fallen angels since Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 refer to angels as sons of God. Unfortunately, the exact wording is not used in each context, although the sentiment is the same…
Some also point to 2 Peter 2:4 as proof when it says, “the angels who sinned.” Although somewhat misleading, it does not state that those fallen angels had sexual relationships with women or procreated.
Jude 6 also points out angels “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode.” Jude 7 compares them to Sodom and Gomorrah, where it states, “in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” Reading these back to back like that does show possible proof that the fallen angels had sexual immorality, but it does not implicitly say that…
One of the biggest criticisms of this theory is that angels, being spiritual beings, would not have DNA that could combine with a woman.
Nowhere in the Bible do fallen angels appear to men, nor does it state they have DNA like other living things on earth.
Some argue that if angels can appear to man, then so can fallen angels. Yet, being able to appear to men and reproduce with them are two different things altogether…
Another problem with this idea is that Jesus states no marriage in Heaven (Matthew 22:30), meaning there would not be procreation. So, angels would not need the equipment needed to procreate.
Let us review:
It’s more than, “one of the most popular views” since 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.
As for, “the exact wording is not used in each context” 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.
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.
As for, “spiritual beings” why would it be that they, “would not have DNA” since humans can be spiritual but we have DNA? She seems to me making a typical error of swapping spirit for spiritual.
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.
Thus, “Nowhere in the Bible do fallen angels appear to men” and yet, that would be their natural look.
As for, “would not have DNA that could combine with a woman…two different things altogether” again, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Moreover, we were created. “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic kind.
That, “Jesus states no marriage in Heaven” is irrelevant since the Gen 6 affair’s marriages took place on Earth. Also, ideally, “there would not be procreation” without marriage but history proves that procreation is possible without marriage—yet, that’s still contextually irrelevant.
Yet, Angela Michelle Schultz makes is relevant by noting, “angels would not need the equipment needed to procreate” yet, we might as well as why God put the forbidden tree in the garden.
Jesus’s statement was also very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms in referring to, “the angels of God in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places 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.
The next perspective is:
Sons of God: Men overtaken by fallen angels/demons
Nephilim: 100% human
Since Nephilim is derived from the verb “to fall,” this would seem to be a possible fit. A possible interpretation of fallen angels overtaking men would be that demons possessed them.
There are various problem with this view, beginning with writing in terms of, “fallen angels/demons” since, sure, demons are fallen Angels but they technically differ: see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
There’s no indication that Angels, fallen Angels as during the Gen 6 affair or not, even could possess anyone since, again, they’re already embodied.
Demons can but they didn’t exist at the time—see my article.
She further notes:
Since possession happened before and after the Flood, this would allow Nephilim to reappear after the Flood. Yet, one question that arises with this theory is, why aren’t there Nephilim born today? During Christ’s time, there were demon possessions, yet no references to Nephilim.
It’s not, “Since” but merely assuming.
As for, “allow Nephilim to reappear after the Flood” the assumption is that since possessed humans post-flood have offspring then, by that definition, all such offspring are Nephilim.
The issue that that if there were ever any such things as post-flood Nephilim then God failed, He must have missed that loophole and flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
The next perspective is:
The Sethite view…
Sons of God: 100% human
Nephilim: 100% human
This viewpoint is probably the second most popular. Many feel that this definition of Nephilim fits the context best, specifically if you look at Genesis 5. There are different theories about who the humans referred to as sons of God might be. Some believe that they were kings or rulers. Some believe that Psalm 82:1-6 supports this. Psalm 82 also clears up confusion about demigods if you take this interpretation.
Others believe the humans referred to as sons of God were from the godly lineage from Adam to Seth, down to Noah. That lineage goes: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and finally Noah.
Since these godly men married ungodly women, their unions had fallen from God’s grace, and their offspring were termed Nephilim….
The one problem with this view is that they assume that Seth’s descendants were godly. Enoch and Noah were, but what about their siblings and the others in the line? After the flood, they were all descendants of Seth, yet Nephilim still occurred.
The Sethite view may be, “the second most popular” but it’s a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
It has, “godly men” not being godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
Note how this time, Angela Michelle Schultz positively affirms, “Nephilim still occurred” or, she may have meant that such would be a logical (though really illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical) conclusion of that view.
Psalm 82, that actually has God, The Almighty Elohim, telling lower elohim that they will die like men: one doesn’t have to tell men that they’ll die like men.
The last perspective is:
The Fallen Men View is very similar to the Sethite View and uses these definitions:
Sons of God: 100% human
Nephilim: 100% human
This view is different than the Sethite view because it does not assume that all Seth’s descendants were considered godly. It deems sons of God to be all godly men of the time in Seth’s line and outside of it. It also implies that not all in Seth’s line were godly.
This implies that godly men were taking wives who were not godly and thus falling away from God’s favor, which produced Nephilim. Unfortunately, this theory has the same problems as the Sethite view. Also, marriages now have one godly spouse and one that does not make Nephilim.
Seem there’s no further need to comment—this is more like a view that’s generic enough to seem passable.
She then adds:
When talking about Nephilim, it seems essential to discuss the book of Enoch. The first and most important thing to point out is that the Book of Enoch is not part of the Bible. It is not the inspired Word of God.
Instead, it is historical and may reveal historical elements. Many believe it was written by Enoch, who was in the lineage between Seth and Noah.
In short, 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
Lastly, I noted, “That they are, ‘mentioned twice’ is, purposefully or not, a very important qualifier” since, for example, I could name the first POTUS, George Washington, right now and even claim that I just saw him but that’s just a mention.
Likewise, Gen 6:4 is the reliable historical record of Nephilim and Num 13:33 is one unreliable sentence from one unreliable, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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