Cecelia Dowdy describes herself as a, “Contemporary and Historical Christian Romance Author…Christian Fiction Author” and posted some info regarding Nephilim which piqued my interest as a research-based author.
One of her article regards, The Nephilim In Christian Fiction, which is a subject on which I have touched upon on occasion.
She refers to Nephilim as, “these creatures” and notes that she has done, “research” on them. She notes, “I’m not a huge reader of speculative fiction….I’m more of a romance, women’s fiction, and suspense reader.”
She notes that she, “just assumed the Nephilim looked more like humans…Double rows of teeth, six digits on each hand and foot…humanistic face.” Well, sure, they looked more like humans since both of their parents looked like humans so, why wouldn’t they? Angels look just like human males and human women look like human women by definition. There’s literally zero indication they had double rows of teeth—that’s just a modern pop-Nephilology mere assertion—and there’s literally zero indication they had extra digit: that’s only stated about one single person in the whole Bible and he was a Repha, not a Nephil.
That article was more like a post via which to make her readers aware of Mike Duran’s article Why Christian Fiction Writers Love the Nephilim (his bio notes, “attended Catholic school before veering off on my own spiritual quest, one that’s left me bruised but wiser. I’ve chronicled my conversion to Christianity…ordained and planted a church,” etc.).
He notes, “Christian speculative writers seem to have a love affair with the Nephilim” and, among others, references L.A. Marzulli, Brian Godowa and Thomas Horn: many more pop-Nephilologists could be added.
He has a theory as to why, “Nephilim are still a hot commodity among Christian fiction writers” which he begins via a, “primer” from an article I reviewed and posted as Northwest Creation Network answers Who Were the Nephilim. One of the problems with that article are statements such as, “Nephilim were…described as giants” which begs the question of to what giants refers.
Mike Duran notes, “The reason why the Nephilim have become such a useful tool for Christian fiction writers is that it allows us to speculate and still remain (somewhat) biblical…it is not uncommon to see Christian reviewers using theology as a template for their fiction…Christian fiction writers can remain somewhat tethered to the Bible.”
My main point on this issue, which Duran missed, is that it’s virtually inevitable that pop-Nephilologists who assert that they’re teaching biblical Nephilology eventually produce works of fiction because what they’re doing under the guise of biblical Nephilology is really selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians for a living so there’s no line to cross into straight up admitting writing fiction.
For backing of that assertion, see my books—two among by dozen, or so, research based Nephilology books:
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.
And:
Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales
Interestingly, to that article, Doug Van Dorn posted the comment, “Too bad you didn’t look into NON-fiction before you wrote this, my book for example–Giants: Sons of the Gods. I spent more than a couple years studying this topic, building a bibliography of scholoarly sources, and writing a biblical-theology (non-fiction) of the Nephilim. I encourage anyone who thinks this is a topic of pure speculation or of little to no importance in the biblical story to go and read some of the reviews…”
Hilariously, someone replied, “I, of course, assume Mr. Duran will be getting a cut from any sales resulting from a click through his page, right? It is the Christian thing to do.”
Well, it’s rather incoherent to, “Too bad,” an article about, “Fiction Writers” for not mentioning, “NON-fiction.” As for Dorn’s supposed, “biblical-theology (non-fiction)” well, he too teaches un-biblical Nephilology, see my articles:
My review of Zachary Garris’ review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants Sons of the Gods”
And:
Now, back to Cecelia Dowdy with her article Giants On The Earth – Who Were The Nephilim? wherein she wrote, “Some translations use the word Nephilim instead of giant. Who were these gigantic people?” but we must first know 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?
She makes reference to, “the little bit of research that I was able to do” which seems to be why she appears to imply that the usage of giants has something to do with some level of height above the subjective average. And such is the case because she noted, “I’ve always thought the Nephilim were the offspring from fallen angels. Why? I guess because they were so huge, much larger than regular humans.”
Well, giant and huge are equally vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage terms so what makes her even appeal to such? Well, because, “I also read that the Nephilim pop up again in the book of Numbers, so I’ve provided that scripture, too. So, it’s possible that the Sons of God appeared again and did the same thing again with human women? The Nephilim mentioned in Genesis were killed during the flood, so the scriptures can’t be talking about the same group of giants?”
I’m afraid that, “I also read” means after an internet search and reading who knows what results rather than reading the Bible—context and all.
Yet, she did hit upon a huge topic which is post-flood Nephilim. Well, sadly, she left that hanging and moved onto, “try to imagine how large these people were…were they twice the size of regular humans, maybe three times larger than the average human? The ones in Numbers state that the regular people were like grasshoppers compared to these giant people! Grasshoppers??…I’m just sitting here, trying to imagine what they would have looked like, giants stomping upon the earth, doing all sorts of wicked things to people. Frightening thoughts…”
Well, she tackled the issue as an author of fiction and was pleased enough to imagine about it and doing so, she missed the narrative context of Num 13:33 which is that it mere records an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Post-flood Nephilim are literally impossible since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
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 pop-Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
To that article, someone commented, “Wow, I must have missed this part of the Bible. Or maybe my Bible teacher at parochial school interpreted this passage in a more boring way. GIANTS! in the BIBLE!! WOW!!” Do you see how it works? Employ the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term giants, misread it, misunderstand it, misinterpret it, misapply it, and get people all excited about well, about what? About a word-concept fallacy.
Let’s answer those key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
It merely renders (doesn’t 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.
What’s her usage?
Something about subjectively unusual height.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
Cecelia Dowdy’s reply included, “The creatures were evil, and, this was one reason why God saw fit to have a flood cover the earth and kill all living creatures with the exception of those inhabitants of Noah’s Ark” but sadly, she still left the issue of post-flood Nephilim hanging.
Someone else’s comment noted, “their extreme size” which is exclusively based on that one single sentence from an evil report by guys whom God rebuked—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
To this, Cecelia Dowdy’s reply included, “I do believe the Giants/Nephilim are products of fallen angels mating with human women” but biblically contextually, “Giants/Nephilim” means, “Nephilim/Nephilim.”
Another comment noted, “…Goliath was big like Andre the Giant of WWE fame) but after you triggered this thought I surfed the web for more facts, and found fossil remains for people believed to be up to 20′ tall and over 1000# weight were not that rare! Way to go! Great Blog, and good example of what draws in readers!”
Just in case: Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil—not could he have been since, again, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form. Yet, it’s quite correct that he was (somewhat), “like Andre the Giant” since Andre was 7.4ft. Now, 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’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
As for, “surfed the web for more” so called, “facts” well, we’ve no idea whence that person came across, “20′ tall.”
Another person noted, “it is possible that the Nephilim were dinosaurs. I can imagine ancient people finding these huge bones and thinking they were giant people or even thinking they were ‘gods from Mount Olympus’, thus providing the ideas that started Greek mythology.”
Well, why would they be dinos when, again, both sides of their parentage looked like regular humans and there’s zero reliable indication they were any taller than the parochial average? Yet, there’s something to be said about, “finding these huge bones” but in the reverse: they would find bones of whales, pachyderm, dinos, etc., and make up tall-tales about, “giant people”—see, “Appendix: Review of Adrienna Mayor’s The First Fossil Hunters” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
The same comment continued, “Whether or not they were dinosaurs, it does make sense that they were not big enough for Noah’s Ark” which seems to be a typo meaning were too big to fit in Noah’s Ark, “Getting rid of giants would be a big favor to mankind, and God could have choosen the flood to get rid of these creatures…fallen angels went to hell, and probably did not have the DNA to mate with humans. Another possiblity for the Nephilim is Neanderthals…No one knows…whether the Nephilim were just dinosaurs. We may never know until heaven.”
We’ve already see that we don’t have to wait until then and add to that, that Angels were incarcerated in Tartarus (see the Greek for 2 Peter 2), not, “hell” and that Nephilim were not Neanderthals since it seems that all, if not a lot, of modern humans have Neanderthal genetics but if Nephilim genetics made it past the flood then, again, God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Cecelia Dowdy’s reply refers to, “I did some further research and that these giant people (Nephilim/Raphaites/etc. – they were known by various names) were actually very tall people. The giants/Nephilim pop up again later on in scripture and one of them was the last in a line of kings and the Bible describes the bed this giant slept on.”
The term, “Nephilim/Raphaites/etc.” is even worse than, “Giants/Nephilim” since that can pass off as a rendering followed by the actual word. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim/Raphaites were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them. Rephaim were aka Zuzim or Zamzummim but there’s no aka for Nephilim in the Bible. As for, “The giants/Nephilim” and, “the bed this giant slept on” that refers to Og, King of Bashan, but he was a Repha, not a Nephil, of course, and we’re told that about him every time he’s mentioned: in English it’s hidden behind the word, “giant.” But what about his, “bed”? Well, assuming to know anything about his height, which isn’t told to us, based on that, “bed” is based on various assumptions: bottom line is 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?
Another comment noted, “Nephilim seems to be related to one of two ancient Hebrew words, one meaning extraordinary and the other meaning fallen. So, the word doesn’t indicate anything about height.” Indeed, the term, “doesn’t indicate anything about height”—I’m unsure whence that person got, “extraordinary.”
That same person noted, “Angels cannot breed. Check out the New Testament teachings when Jesus was asked about widows in heaven. He said angels are sexless. So, I believe nephilim weren’t the offspring of angels and men. Sons of God, therefore, must indicate the Sethite line. Since these ‘nephilim’ were destroyed by flood, the word must be generic, not specific.”
The claim that, “Angels cannot breed” is just an assertion despite appearances of support.
Firstly, one can only make that positive affirmation after rejecting the Angel view of Gen 6 and Jude and 2 Peter 2 which 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.
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.
Secondly, there’s no record of Jesus ever saying, “angels are sexless”: recall what I noted above regarding looking like human males.
Thirdly, this means that the conclusions are fallacious and that sons of God, “must indicate the Sethite line” is a mere assertion that’s artificially inserted. Indeed, “these ‘nephilim’ were destroyed by flood” but that ergo, “the word must be generic, not specific” is a non-sequitur.
This person also wrote, “The size of these individuals is never suggested to be 2-3 times of average people. Goliath seems to have been around 9 feet tall” which we have already reviewed and that, “The accounts of giantism in the Bible are frequently left unexamined” is a non-issue since there’s no indication of giantism to examine.
Cecelia Dowdy replied, in part, by noting, “I don’t think that angels in heaven can breed, BUT, I’m led to believe that FALLEN ANGELS MAY be able to breed” and did so indeed. What happened is that, purposefully or not, the commentator manipulated Jesus’ words (note they weren’t quoted). Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.” So, not all generically 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.
In her article Have You Ever Seen An Angel? she noted, “From what I can recall from reading my Bible, angels are usually big, wingless, male-looking beings. Can you imagine, being alone in a room and then you see an angel? Honestly? I think I’d have a heart attack, or, think that I’m dreaming!”
No indication whatsoever that, “angels are usually big” (as vaguely generic as that subjective term is).
Indeed, “wingless, male-looking.”
As for, “being alone in a room and then you see an angel?” such is why there are some three instances in the Bible where the first thing Angels say is fear not since that was the scenario: someone thought they were alone when someone else is suddenly there! So, that was a very insightful insight by her.
In her article It Takes Two Men To Carry One Cluster Of Grapes?, Numbers 13:23-25 is quoted, the key aspect of which is that the men who reconnoitered the land of Canaan, “cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs.”
Somehow, pop-Nephilologists do much what Cecelia Dowdy does which is to connect that with, “Giants/Nephilim” and she makes the same basic error that they do, “Can you imagine how huge those grapes were?” yes, regular size: why? There’s no statement about grapes being larger than average, the statement is that the cluster was bountiful—and if the grapes were extra-large, why weren’t the pomegranates?
Yet, after asserting that, she eventually wrote, “It’s possible that the grapes were the same size as the ones that we see today, but the clusters were bigger – so big that 2 people had to carry them!”
But the pop-Nephilology fantasy is, “this is where the Giants were living, too. I’ll bet those grapes were as big or bigger than the apples that we eat today!” for some odd and unknown and unelucidated reasons—actually, pop-Nephilologists make up neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales about how fallen Angels (who weren’t even there at the time since they were incarcerated) or Nephilim (who weren’t even there at the time since they had been dead and gone since the flood) where genetically manipulating humans and animals and fruits/veggies which is something for which, of course, there’s literally zero indication.
She then writes, “The people that Moses’s spies saw when gathering the grapes, the Giants/Nephilim, were descendants of a man named Anak. Anak was a Raphaite. The Anakites or Rephaim were Giants that are mentioned in the Old Testament several times. It appears that they finally died off because there is a scripture” and then quotes a text about Og.
This was worse than the last time she mentioned this since, “The” 12, “people that Moses’s spies saw when gathering the grapes” didn’t say a single word about, “Giants/Nephilim” but the 10 unreliable and God rebuked ones did in an evil report.
There’s zero reliable indication (and only one single non-LXX sentence’s worth of a false report) that they, “were descendants of a man named Anak” since indeed, “Anak was a Raphaite” and not a Nephil.
We know the issues with asserting, “The Anakites or Rephaim were Giants” again, is that it means, “The Anakites or Rephaim were Rephaim.”
She then noted, “If you are interested, here are all of the scripture references of the Anakites, Nephilim, and Raphaim. Look them up if you want” and that list begins with, “Genesis 6:1-4” which doesn’t state a single word about Anakim/Anakites in particular nor Rephaim/Raphaim in general—since they didn’t even exist until centuries later.
When she asserts, “Moses’s spies were told to get rid of the different people living in the land of Canaan, which included these Giants!” she doesn’t seem to realize that means Rephaim but of course, not Nephilim. At this point, she notes, “I got most of this research from Wikipedia, so, use at your own risk! I did look up all of the scriptures” so why did she merely assert that Anakim/Anakites/Rephaim/Raphaim were in Gen 6?
She then goes back to imagination with, “Can you imagine living in a land with these gigantic people with gigantic clusters of grapes?” I wouldn’t bother expending brain cells on un-biblical sci-fi tall-tales.
Overall, I’m empathetic how a fiction writer would only do surface level research and then imaginatively speculate—that’s great fiction fodder. But it alarms me, as a research-based author who is familiar with over two millennia’s worth of relevant data and has written some dozen Nephilology books, when surface level research is put forth as being mostly factual.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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