The admin of the site posted Who were the Nephilim? which notes:
NEPHILIM (Heb. nephi„li„m; Numbers 13:13)…clearly meaning the unnatural offspring that were on the earth in the years before the Flood, “and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them” (Genesis 6:4).
The mention of the great stature of the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, in the evil report that the ten spies brought of the land of Canaan (Numbers 13:33) together with the LXX rendering, gigantes, suggested the translation giants.
They were exceedingly wicked and violent so that “every intent” of the thoughts of men’s hearts “was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5)…
The Nephilim are considered by many to be giant demigods, the unnatural offspring of the “daughters of men” (mortal women) in cohabitation with the “sons of God” (angels; cf. Genesis 6:1-4).
This utterly unnatural union, violating God’s created order of being, was such a shocking abnormality as to necessitate the worldwide judgment of the Flood.
Another view of the Nephilim is that they were particularly violent (the name is from a root, “to fall,” i.e., on other people), strong (“mighty”), and infamous (“men of renown”) people who predated the marriages of v. 2.
This viewpoint often explains the unions as intermarriage of the godly line of Seth (described in 4:25–5:32) with the ungodly line of Cain (4:1-24).
Note that Gen 6 is being manipulated since the admin commented, “were on the earth in the years before the Flood” and then mashed that into the middle of v. 4 to construct a biblically non-existent statement that they were, “on the earth…before the Flood ‘and also afterward’” and yet, at least the admin left in where the verse actually tells us to what days it’s referring and it’s not the flood rather, it’s, “in those days, “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them” and so, “also afterwards” until the flood—in fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later.
Note that, “This…necessitate[d] the worldwide judgment of the Flood” so that makes post-flood Nephilim at any time and in any way, shape of from impossible since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Now, “giants” technically isn’t a translation but is a rendering. And, the admin seems to be using that vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word to mean something about some subjectively, generic, vague, height above the parochial average (see how useless that word is?) which isn’t the usage of it in modern English Bibles wherein 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.
Moreover, since, “The mention of the great stature of the Nephilim, the sons of Anak” is from, “the evil report that the ten” unreliable, “spies” whom God rebuked mere asserted, it’s utterly unreliable.
And, the evil report lacks any reference to the Anakim in the LXX version.
Thus, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and the only contextually relevant thing we’re told about Anakim (a clan of the Rephaim tribe) is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
And, , “the LXX rendering, gigantes” has nothing to do with this since that merely means, “earth-born.”
The, “intermarriage of the godly line of Seth (described in 4:25–5:32) with the ungodly line of Cain (4:1-24)” is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice since there’s no such thing as a, “godly line of Seth” (who weren’t godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood) not any such thing as an, “ungodly line of Cain.”
The website also contains an article titled Q. How are the Nephilim/giants mentioned in Scripture after the flood to be understood if one of the reasons of the flood was to destroy that unholy mixture of demons and the daughters of men recorded in Genesis 6? which consists of this question elucidated as:
I just ready your article about the Sons of God and daughters of men (https://bible.org/seriespage/7-sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-61-8). It was well written, thank you. Usually when someone supports that position, I have found the opinions that follow are pretty outlandish. I found your article fairly convincing.
My question is this (if you don’t mind): You referenced Numbers 13:33 and the sons of Anak. If at least part of the purpose of the flood is to destroy these hybrid giants, why would these giants still be around after the flood? Your quote is, “I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth”. Wouldn’t they have died off in the flood?
Robert L. Deffinbaugh (“graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary with his Th.M….pastor/teacher and elder at Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas, and has contributed many of his Bible study series for use by the Foundation”) replied:
Right now I am reading a book by Michael S. Heiser, entitled, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible. It comes pretty highly recommended, but I’m reading cautiously. But he does make a point of showing how the Bible reflects the (largely) unseen spiritual realm (Psalm 82; Job 38:4-7; Ephesians 3:8-10). Thus, it is not surprising to read Genesis 6 in this light, and to see the “sons of God” as angelic beings (who did not keep their own domain — Jude 1:6).
Now, your question is, “How do we explain ‘giants’ (described by the same word Nephilim) later on, after the fall? My inclination is to understand the term Nephilim as meaning “giants” (human or supernatural). The Nephilim of Genesis 6 were angelic, and thus giants. Later on there were still “giants” in the land — those folks who were exceedingly large, like Goliath, his kin (1 Chronicles 20:5), and others like him (1 Chronicles 11:22-23). As I read the text, these were not supernatural beings, as found earlier in Genesis, which were destroyed by the flood, but simply a group of extra-large people. These appeared at various times in Israel’s history.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:
Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy
Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”
I also included him in my book, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
Heiser committed a very typical error in uncritically picking up one single non-LXX version of one verse, Num 13:33, running with it, applying it and, of course, it created all sorts of problems he sought to wiggle out of.
Note how useless it is to refer to, “the term Nephilim as meaning ‘giants’” since that merely begs the follow-up question: what’s your usage of that vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern word?
That, “The Nephilim of Genesis 6 were angelic, and thus giants” is not only a merely asserted positive affirmation but is a non-sequitur: they were half-Angelic and what does that have to do with being giants (even if by “angelic” he actually thinks they were Angels)?
Note that he’s committing a typical English based error by uncritically chasing the English word giants around an ancient Hebrew Bible. He’s now using giants in reference to, “exceedingly large” which is not the English Bible’s usage.
Thus, “Later on there were still ‘giants’ in the land” is as meaningless as that, “Later on there were still ‘subjectively, generically, vaguely, taller by some unknown margin than the parochial average’ in the land” so, what of it?
As for Goliath well, okay, we could say he was exceedingly large and yet, exceedingly and large are just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants. Note 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. (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.
At least he realizes that, “these were not supernatural beings, as found earlier in Genesis, which were destroyed by the flood.”
The site also contains an article titled 13. The Giant Of Discouragement (Num. 13:1-14:45) by Roger Pascoe (“President of the Institute for Biblical Preaching (IBP)…was the Director of The Stephen Olford Centre for Preaching and Leadership at Heritage Theological Seminary,” etc.).
That being part 13 of a series (ironic that it covers Num 13) we will pick up the most contextually relevant parts—to include what his usage if of the term, “Giant.”
Refreshingly, he specifies, “12 spies who were sent into the land of Canaan” and refers to, “The Reports” in the plural since there were two of them.
Indeed, “The two spies (Caleb and Joshua) brought back a good report…These 2 spies were characterized by courage and confidence in God.”
Yet, “ten spies brought back a bad report.” Oddly, at this point there’s a misstep in that Pascoe continued directly with, “They admitted that it was a good land but they saw danger and defeat. They said, ‘It’s a good land – it flows with milk and honey – but…’ (13:27-29)” yet, that’s from the report of the 2, not the 10.
He continued directly with, “‘But’ is usually a sign of unbelief. They saw giants, fortified cities, and all the ‘-ites’ (Amalekites etc.). Their conclusion? ‘We will be soundly defeated’ (13:31-33). These 10 spies were paralyzed by fear.”
Yet, it’s not the case that, “But” was followed by, “They saw giants, fortified cities, and all the ‘-ites’” (only a strictly English reader could refer to, “the ‘-ites’”) since the report of the two follows the but with, “the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw” and they list who was seen: Anakites, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (note no mention of Nephilim).
And, “Their,” Caleb and Joshua’s, “conclusion?” was, “Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.”
Yet, “10 spies were paralyzed by fear.”
Then follows sermonizing and then, “The report of the ten spies was accepted but the report of the two was rejected” and it is so to this day amongst anyone—scholar or pop-Nephilologists—which all post-flood Nephilology including giants-Nephilology is based on siding with 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them.
All post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus and implies that God failed, that He missed a loophole, that the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. Then, post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy stories about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
It’s noted that the 10 noted, “The land we passed through to explore is one that devours its inhabitants” which is a flat-out contradiction of the reliable report of the 2 which was of a good land which flows with milk and honey. Yet, incidentally, to Pascoe, this was about, “ferocious cannibals.”
In any case, he seems unaware of the LXX issue and so writes in terms of, “The size and strength of the men. ‘We also saw the descendants of Anak there… All the people we saw in it are men of great size. We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim! To ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and we must have seemed the same to them’ (13:28b, 32b, 33). The implication? ‘We are puny, small, like grasshoppers in comparison.’”
We don’t even have reliable indication that something as generic as, “All the people we saw in it are men of great size” is accurate, see my article Were “all the people” in Canaan “of great height”?
It’s noted, “The ten spies died (14:36-37) because they complained against Moses and caused the people to sin” via their fear-mongering scare-tactic, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” style of tall-tale.
The rest of it is the likes of, “The giant of discouragement” that’s not contextually relevant to my purposes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.