ACTheologian, the “Armchair Theologian,” posted an article titled What’s the deal with the Nephilim? which begins by noting, “This post was published 8/1/16, recently (9/3/17) I’ve come across some information that indicates my interpretation may be wrong, or at the very least incomplete. I’m going to leave it posted as one possible way of interpreting these passages. In the future maybe I’ll blog on some of the things I am learning”: it appears that the “maybe” never manifested so I will review what is still posted in order to attempt to suss out what the problems may be.
Key first relevant text is quoted thusly:
“4 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.” Gen 6:4 ESV
ACTheologian then quotes three comments on it:
“The conditions before the Flood are further characterized. Wild, lawless men, tyrants there were on the earth in those days, offspring of marriages that did not meet with God’s approval, children of wild passion, men that defied order and authority and became mighty men, whose names were mentioned with bated breath as those of unparalleled champions and heroes. The whole earth was full of outrage and violence. Cp. Matt. 24, 38. 39. This is a picture of our own days, of the period immediately preceding the final Judgment, full of the most impressive warning for all that will heed the signs of the times.” – Kretzmann Commentaries
That’s more sermonizing that elucidating so is essentially irrelevant.
The next one is:
“The Nephilim (“fallen ones, giants”) were the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1–4. There is much debate as to the identity of the “sons of God.” It is our opinion that the “sons of God” were fallen angels (demons) who mated with human females or possessed human males who then mated with human females. These unions resulted in offspring, the Nephilim, who were “heroes of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).” –GotQuestions
Writing in terms of, “The Nephilim (‘fallen ones, giants’)” is linguistically odd since it mashes together the etymology of the root word naphal with a mere rendering (not even translation) as giants.
Likewise, “fallen angels (demons)” is also odd as it’s a styled category error and anachronistic. 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, demons didn’t exist at that time as per my Bible based elucidation I wrote in my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
I’ve no issue with the general statement, “fallen angels (demons)” if it generically refers to that demons are fallen Angels—now (even if in a technical sense). Yet, within the Gen 6 affair’s context it can lead to problems since, for example, demons are spirits and couldn’t have copulated but 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.
As for, “fallen angels (demons) who…possessed human males” well, that’s another problem with mashing those categories together in this context since demons possess but Angels don’t.
The last one reads:
“There were giants in the earth – נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, “he fell.” Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
The same became mighty men – men of renown – גברים gibborim, which we render mighty men, signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from גבר gabar, “he prevailed, was victorious.” and אנשי השם anshey hashshem, “men of the name,” ανθρωποι ονομαστοι, Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim, gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured.” – Clarke Commentary
He’s clearly reading, “fallen from the true religion” into the text since it states nothing of it—even if it may be said to be implied by deep implication.
It’s very elucidating to be as technically specific as to note that, γιγαντες/gigantes signifies earth-born whence comes the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants which, by definition given to it by the usage in English Bibles, doesn’t even imply anything about height of any sort whatsoever.
Ergo, the reference to, “without having any reference to the meaning of the word” so that the issue is the meaning(s)/definition(s) of a word versus their subjective usage since, “we,” modern English speakers, “generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature” which, “we” shouldn’t (mis) read into the Bible: doing so would be committing a word-concept fallacy.
Yet, Clarke then misidentifies well, everyone:
It’s not “sons of men” but daughters of men.
It’s not, “the sons of God; those were the nephilim” since Nephilim were fathered by sons of God.
And Nephilim were, “fallen earth-born men” only in as far as biblically, humans, Angels, and Nephilim (half-Angel and half-human) are all referred to as man/men.
I’m unsure to whom he’s referring by, “our translators” but indeed, it was a terrible idea to only use one (vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word) to render, not translate, more than one word—especially such very morphologically different words.
Now, note that the list seems to identify seven people groups but Nephilim were hybrids. Gibborim is the merely descriptive term for might/mighty. Anakim/“enachim” and Emim were subgroups/clans of the Rephaim tribe and Zamzummim was just an a.k.a. for Rephaim.
As for, “not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured” indeed, we’ve actual no reliable physical description of Nephilim (which alone debunks 100% of pop-Nephilology) and all we’re told about Rephaim, by any other name, is that they were, “tall”—which is as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as the word giants—which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Sorry that the commercials keep coming but when I’ve researched so many aspects of this issue, I can’t help it. So, if you’re interested in more traditional “commentaries” such as that of Kretzmman and Clarke’s see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s. Also, I wrote the book on the relevant linguistics, see Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
The Armchair Theologian followed up with, “I don’t think anyone can definitively declare what the Nephilim were” but we can keep it simply by noting that they were the strictly pre-flood offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men who were mighty and renown. Yet, that simple observation gets complicated when were ask who were the sons of God, in particular?
For some reason, “I would first categorically rule out the Nephilim as being children of fallen angels” even though 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”).
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. And there’s the bit about the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators.
It’s noted, “God created the bearing of Children as something synonymous with marriage” and the sons of God, “took them wives”—so, at least they got that right.
Now, sadly, ACTheologian plays a typical anti-Angel view card which is to misrepresent Jesus but then quote Him and not noticing that the assertion and quote don’t match. The assertion was generic in the it states, “we find in Matthew that Angels do not get married” but that’s an all-encompassing claim. Yet, Jesus was more specific, more nuanced, and applied qualifying terms, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (emphasis by ACT). See, He was very clear in that He was exclusively speaking not of all Angels but about, “angels in heaven” (with at least 19 English versions having, “angels of God in Heaven”). Ergo, He was referring to the loyal ones, which is why those who did to are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate,” as Jude puts it, in order to do so.
Now, ACT also wrote, “Angels do not get married, therefore it is fair to say that they likely would not be capable of having children either” but that would be an illogical and ill-biological non-sequitur. We, sadly, have literally millions of examples of having children without the benefit of marriage.
It’s then noted that, “To assert otherwise, you either have to believe that God created beings who could have children but were barred from doing so, or you just have to start making stuff up” well, ACT made up stuff, knowingly or not (I’ve no problem assuming not as in that it was just an oversight) but as for, “God created beings who could have children but were barred from doing so” well, God created beings who could have children but they barred themselves from doing so such as eunuchs or those who otherwise chose to not have children. Yet, it’s only asserted that there’d be something wrong with creating beings who could have children but barring them from doing so but since it’s a mere implication that’s not elucidated them we know not what the problem is in ACT’s eyes. God also created beings, Angels, who could murder but they were barred from doing so: so, what of it?
After that is when ACT quotes Jesus after reiterating the vaguely generic assertion, “Jesus teaches angels cannot marry or be given in marriage” and actually wrote, “I am including the whole narrative for context” but the context (vss. 23-33) doesn’t assist ACT’s missing key qualifying terms.
So then, when ACT concludes, “I believe I can fairly say that the Nephilim were most likely only of human DNA” that’s based on some erroneous commentary and misrepresenting Jesus.
We then come to, “The Nephilim are mentioned…once again they are brought up in Numbers:
“32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. 33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” Num 13:32-33 ESV
ACT’s comment is, “The plainest understanding of the Nephilim based on the above passage is that it is a genetic thing. Some people are Nephilim and some people are not. I would compare it to being genetically Jewish, British, or Jamaican. Nephilim is simply an ancient ethnicity. Apparently it seems to come with some stereotypical traits, one of which is being really tall.”
Well, of course, “Nephilim…is a genetic thing” and of course, “Some people are [actually “were”] Nephilim and some people are not” and of course, “compare it to being genetically…” this or that and of course, “is simply an ancient ethnicity” yet, when it comes to, “stereotypical traits, one of which is being really tall” we see where ACT has gone wrong. This was stated as generically being, “in Numbers” along with a citation but ACT neglected to inform the readers that, “in Numbers” it tells us that vss. 32-33 are two sentences from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Ergo, we can instantly dismiss what they merely asserted, post-flood Nephilim are only possible if God failed and the flood was much of a waste, and since the only physical description we have of Nephilim is from one of those sentences then we’ve no reliable physical description of them (that too debunks 100% of pop-Nephilology).
Yet, borrowing from pop-Nephilology, ACT plays the name-game but at least admits, “Though the word isn’t uses specifically in this next passage we can see a very similar theme being conveyed” and then quotes and comments:
“11 (For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)” Deu 3:11 ESV
“Rephaim is a Hebrew word for giants. Deut. 3:11 declares that his “bedstead” (translated in some texts as “sarcophagus”) of iron is “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.” –Wikipedia
Keep in mind that just because his bed was 13.5 feet tall that doesn’t mean he was as well. It does mean that he was likely tall enough to need such a bed though. We have tall people like this today who would likely have enormous beds just like King Og.
See, “the word isn’t uses specifically in this next passage” because it’s not about a Nephil, it’s about a Repha so it has nothing whatsoever to do with Nephilim. It doesn’t even have anything to do with their fantasy height since ACT realizes we’ve no physical description of Og so appeals to his bed: which is an error based on various assumptions. Bottom line is that the, “bed” was a ritual object and not something upon which Og slept, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
ACT then posted a photo of Sultan Kosen who is a modern guy that is 8.3ft. tall and that has utterly nothing to do with anything. Yet, ACT notes, “I am pointing out that extreme height is a thing in the human genome” which is irrelevant to biblical Nephilology—no matter if you disagree with the original, traditional, and majority view or not.
ACT then goes back to Gen 6 and notes that before that, “we have two chapters detailing the lineage after Adam” and then invents that, “one lineage is from Cain, very worldly and earthy, and then the other is from Seth. The line of Seth is marked as those who ‘called upon the name of the Lord’” even though there’s nothing anywhere that states those things—the best one can do is that at a certain time men began to do that, “‘To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.’ Gen 4:26 ESV.”
ACT wrote:
…would mark the Nephilim as those who came from the line of Cain in chapter 4. This is because when we get to 6 we see the following:
“1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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.” Gen 6:1-4 ESV
I am arguing that contextually, the sons of God and man are not the same groups of people. The referent for “Man” would be the worldly line of Cain described in chapter 4, and the Sons of God are those who called upon the name of the Lord. They are the more noble line of Seth. You could call them the Christians of this era.
Sadly, ACT also seems to be unaware that, again, humans, Angels, and Nephilim (half-Angel and half-human) are all referred to as man/men. Thus, ACT’s argument is a non-issue, it’s a myopic word-concept fallacy.
Indeed, “the sons of God and” daughters of, “man are not the same groups of people” that one of the key features of the text. But note that, “worldly line of Cain” is just mythical prejudice. Note that this view has “Sons of God are those who called upon the name of the Lord…the more noble line of Seth…the Christians of this era” who weren’t sons of God who called upon the name of the Lord, weren’t more noble, nor Christian since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.
ACT has it that, “It looks like this breaks down though when those of Seth start marrying into the line of Cain” but that’s after hyperbolically caricaturing both sides.
Also, why only strictly male Sethies and only strictly female Cainites? Well, the Angel view answers that since, again, Angels are described as males.
Now, even though ACT rejects the original, traditional, and majority view, a pitfall of typical un-biblical post-flood Nephilology is still appealed to:
One of the things that came about was likely a genetic trait of great height, and likely strength too. Not long after that the flood comes and wipes everything out. Clearly there has to be more going on in the text than is actually stated. But that is what I am putting together. It does seem clear though that these traits of height and strength still carried to one degree or another through the line of Noah. Perhaps one of the girls his sons married was related to the Nephilim, which is why we see it later in the land of Canaan.
Is it possible that Goliath was the last Nephilim wiped out by David? I like the Christological typology that would imply but it’s not something I would be dogmatic about.
Again, no such thing as, “a genetic trait of great height.” Ergo, no, “traits of height…carried…through the line of Noah.” Nor any reason to even imagine, “one of the girls his sons married was related to the Nephilim.” And, Goliath has nothing to do with this since he was a Repah, not a Nephil, and besides: The Masoretic text has him 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’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
And, “Christological typology” is like saying: well, I can’t figure it out so I’ll view is as symbolic—in one or another sense.
ACT’s conclusion includes:
I prefer the general understanding that I conveyed at the end is because it is the only rendering I have seen that relies on the most scripture and the least amount of assumptions. It does still have a fair amount of assumptions though, more than I am comfortable with anyways. So I hold to it in a state of reverent speculation.
Do I think that other theories are totally wrong? What about the nifty legends of men born from angels with superpowers? What about all the stories from the book of Enoch? Well these stories are fun but they are apocryphal.
I won’t condemn them as heresy but I don’t think they are correct either. Such tales are based more on assumption than scripture, and with what I have presented I think I am able to rely on the scripture more and assumptions less so.
Rewrite, “I prefer the” currently, “general understanding” which is based on many assumptions, assertions, myths, prejudice, etc.
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.
Now, let’s keep in mind that that was ACT’s view before, “information that indicates my interpretation may be wrong, or at the very least incomplete” so who knows which portions have been augmented. Like I said, I reviewed what’s there and, who knows, perhaps it will assist in sharpening iron with iron.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.