Hereinafter is a review of what an article from what is actually titled Nick’s Catholic Blog. I know nothing about Nick since I could not find a bio on his blog but will get to know something about his Nephilology views due to his article The true identy [sic.] of the Nephilim which he wrote due to that, “I think I have discovered (at least to my knowledge) the ‘true identity’ of the Nephilim famously mentioned in Genesis 6.”
He notes, “The long-standing debate on Genesis 6:1-8 is whether the ‘Sons of God’ are fallen angels who mated with women or if the ‘Sons of God’ are the godly lineage of Seth mentioned in Genesis 5… the ‘godly lineage of Seth’ view (defended famously by St Augustine).”
Augustine lived 354-430 AD so that is some half a millennia after we have records of this issue being an issue (and that is referring to just that: when we have record of it).
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. I put Augustine in my psychology chair when pondering why he opted contra the original, traditional, and majority view and suspect that it was because when he converted from Gnostic Manichaeanism he sought to divest himself of all things Manichaean so that since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine would not.
Nick notes, “When you consult Genesis 5, it is one long chapter about the righteous lineage of Seth, all the godly men Seth’s lineage produced. With this exegetical detail in mind, we immediately see a natural link to the opening words of Ch6, where the ‘Sons of God’ most easily fit the Righteous Lineage of Seth just talked about.”
I am unaware of a, “godly lineage of Seth…righteous lineage of Seth” but note that he then included a qualifying term, “all the godly men Seth’s lineage produced” which makes this odder still. Common sense would dictate that some of them were godly and some not (as the qualifying statement implies: making the other comments too vaguely generic since they are all-encompassing).
But Nick has it that it was specifically the, “righteous…godly men Seth’s lineage produced” who would then not righteous nor godly after all since they were actually such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that is rather odd.
So, he thinks that, “With this exegetical detail in mind, we immediately see a natural link to the opening words of Ch6, where the ‘Sons of God’ most easily fit the Righteous Lineage of Seth just talked about” but that is a historical oddity and turns the righteous godly into the unrighteous ungodly.
He notes, “Those who hold to a fallen angels interpretation generally hold that the Nephilim are these giant beings who are angel-human hybrids…‘giants’ (Greek).” Biblically contextually, “Nephilim are these giant beings” would mean, “Nephilim are these Nephilim beings” so key questions are 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? Also, it is not, “‘giants’ (Greek)” but cannot be since, “giants” is an English word, not a Greek one.
Nick noted that Sethite view adherents, “usually push back and say angels as spirit beings cannot have flesh relations with humans.” Indeed, their premise is un-biblical Angelology and their conclusion is faulty. Biblically, 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.
Heads up: his article jumps back and forth between two views of that which I term the Gen 6 affair and Nephilim.
He noted that Sethite view adherents conclude that, “the godly lineage of Seth makes the most sense given that the world was described here as turning completely wicked and thus the flood (Deluge) was now necessary.” Yet, we could just as easily say that the Angel view makes the most sense given that the world was described here as turning completely wicked and thus the flood (Deluge) was now necessary.
Nick claims that it was an issue of, “intermarriage between the righteous and the pagans” but that is a mere assertion in both directions—except if we want to label all people pagans in those corrupt pre-flood days.
He notes that Nephilim were, “very tall giants like Goliath” so we have the answer to the question about his usage of, “giants” 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).
This means that the answer to the third question is, “No” since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that 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.
Nick quotes Gen 6:1-8:
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.
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
He asserts, “If you’re going to say the ‘Sons of God’ are (fallen) angels, that’s a random shift in the story line, which isn’t impossible but is a random detail suddenly appearing in the text.” I appreciate the, “which isn’t impossible” qualifier since without it, the issue would be that he could say that about any time that a character is suddenly introduced. He could say that the, “serpent” cannot be Satan since, after all, Gen 1-2 nor most of 3 say anything about anyone except for God, Adam and Eve and so that’s a random shift in the story line and we could say the same of the Cherubim which are suddenly introduced into chap. 3.
He actually noted, “The book of Genesis is heavily focused on the ‘Seed’ of Genesis 3:15 conquering the Serpent, and thus the repeated theme of Genesis is that of Satan trying to corrupt the lineage of the Seed and thus repeatedly attempt to disrupt the Incarnation” and for some odd (unknown) reason he artificially inserted (random shifted), “sexual sin was likely Adam & Eve’s sin” for which there is literally zero indication—with, that is, the exception of the late-comer of a historically virtually unknown view of Cain being the fathered by Satan: a view contract which I wrote a five volume set of books, my Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan series.
Nick continued with, “If the ‘Sons of God’ are fallen angels who intermarry with pagan women, then that doesn’t flow with the theme of the Seed being corrupted. The saints of Genesis 5 would still be on the earth doing just fine if (fallen) angels were mating with pagan women, so it really doesn’t make sense that God would want to flood the earth under that angels theory.”
If the, “Sons of God” are fallen angels who intermarry with pagan women, then that all the more so flows with the theme of the Seed being corrupted since a theory would be that such was Satan’s motivation in casting those Angels down. They mated with humans so as to corrupt humanity to the point that a non-Angel-Human-hybrid Messiah would not be possible.
On the Angel view, “The saints of Genesis 5 would still be on the earth doing” the corrupt things into which everyone, sans the eight who were selected to be on the ark, did (and some outliers such as Methusela—see below). Thus, it makes all the more sense that God would want to flood the earth under the Angels theory.
He further argues, “to think the Nephilim were angel-human hybrid creatures does not really explain why God would cut man’s life down to 120 years (6:3), nor why the Deluge would be the ‘solution’ (6:5-7), since an angel-human hybrid could assumingly not be killed (as easily), and likely would have even gone after Noah to physically stop him.”
Unfortunately, he did not elucidate how thinking that the sons of God were righteous/godly Sethites would explain why God would cut man’s life down to 120 years—in fact, he will argue that Nephilim were good guys which makes this point even weaker.
It is a simple case of that we are not told why God did that.
I am unsure why he thinks that, “angel-human hybrid could assumingly not be killed” or could be but not, “as easily.”
He added, “The wording of 6:5-7 indicates God would wipe out humans, plants, and animals, but no mention of wiping out angels (who would be the true culprits), thus rendering the punishment of a Flood meaningless.”
Perhaps there is, “no mention of wiping out angels” because He did not wipe them out and/or because the Bible’s main focus is humanity—our creation, fall, and redemption—so that no matter upon what topic it touches, focus is inevitably and quickly retuned to what it had to do with us, how it affected us, etc.
As for, “the true culprits” it was a tripartite perfect storm: fallen humanity, fallen Angels, and fallen Nephilim.
Rather than wiping out, 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/sin of Angels in the Bible so if they were not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we have no idea to what sin they were referring.
Thus, dealing with the triple combo causes for the flood is the opposite of, “rendering the punishment of a Flood meaningless.”
Nick argues:
Given that, it makes perfect sense for God to cut down Seth’s lineage down to 120 years when Genesis 5 just got through telling us the long lifespans of: Seth (912 years); Enosh (905yrs); Jared (800yrs); Methusela (969yrs); Enoch (365yrs); Lamech (777yrs); Noah (500yrs). Meanwhile, the lifespans of Cain are not mentioned (Genesis 4).
Thus, it makes perfect sense for God to cut down Seth’s lineage from hundreds of years down to 120 years if Seth’s lineage turned wicked. Otherwise, that 120 years limitation is just a random detail not connected to anything. This parallels strongly with God saying Adam would “die” as a punishment for sin; where in this case it was not only death but also greatly reduced lifespan.
Before it was, “cut man’s life” in general, “down to 120 years” with Gen 6:3 referring to, “man…his days shall be 120 years” but now it is, “cut down Seth’s lineage down to 120 years” and whatever, “Meanwhile, the lifespans of Cain are not mentioned” is supposed to mean/imply—besides a mere observation. Logically, if on the Sethite view God specifically targeted Sethites for a lifespan reduction, He also would have done it for the Cainite side of the equation—as well as all other lineages who were part of the corrupt perfect storm.
At least we got the qualifying term, “if Seth’s lineage turned wicked.”
He then argues:
Now we get to the next big detail, what verse 4 says: “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.” Why would the text randomly introduce some irrelevant detail and a race of people we’ve not heard of, when the established context is that of the world turning wicked through human intermarriage?
It says the Nephilim were “mighty men, men of renown,” which sounds like human men, not that of angel-human hybrids. The biggest detail to keep in mind though is that it does not say the Nephilim came about due to the sexual offspring of these wicked unions, but rather that the Nephilim seem to have already existed.
We already dealt with, “Why would the text randomly introduce some…detail and a race of people we’ve not heard of” because such is the case anytime a new character is introduced, but note that he sought to strengthen his point by inserting, “irrelevant” into his statement, the simple solution to which is that it was not irrelevant at all.
If, “mighty men, men of renown” does not sound like Angel-human hybrids: what would? The fact is that humans, Angles, Nephilim, and God are all referred to as man/men.
As for, “it does not say the Nephilim came about due to the sexual offspring of these wicked unions”: the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
He adds:
Most importantly, the text does not say the Nephilim were evil, but rather a more neutral term: “they were mighty men of ages past, famous men,” and that they were “on earth in those days and afterwards.” What this means is that if the Nephilim are not describe as wicked, then where did we get that idea? The main source of thinking the Nephilim were bad is not from the text itself, but rather assumptions we bring to the text.
What Nick missed is that the context is the aforementioned perfect storm, so that what tells us that they were evil/wicked is not a specific mention of that but that they were part of the corruption: such is whence the idea is gotten, “from the text itself.”
He notes, “The ‘Book of Enoch’ says the Nephilim were fallen angels, but the Book of Enoch was written over 1000 years after Genesis, so it isn’t that reliable and the Church and Rabbis never endorsed that book.” Indeed, The Book of Enoch/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.
Furthermore:
While the Rabbis say “Nephilim” has a related word meaning “to fall,” that’s still just speculating here.
In fact, the Greek Old Testament (LXX) translates them as “giants,” and that’s exactly how Numbers 13:31-33 describes the Nephilim, as giants towering over regular men as if grasshoppers. This Numbers 13:31-33 context is worth noting because it is the only other time Nephilim appears in the Old Testament (to my knowledge), so there’s not a lot to go with, but we can see the “giants” definition makes more sense than “fallen”.
Side note, the text of Numbers 13:31-33 is a falsehood being told by a spy, so he is not necessarily describing real events, but rather is making up stories to scare the people from going into the land. So even that passage is of limited value, and it does not suggest the Nephilim survived the flood, and furthermore would defeat the whole point of Genesis 6 if the Nephilim were evil and dodged the flood.
It is too generic to write in terms of, “the Rabbis say” since that refers to thousands upon thousands of people who lived from BC days until today but it is fair enough that the standard view is that the word Nephilim finds its roots in the word naphal and would mean fall, fallen, feller, to cause to fall, etc.
Recall that I noted, “it is not, ‘‘giants’ (Greek)’ but cannot be since, ‘giants’ is an English word, not a Greek one” and it is the same issue with, “Greek Old Testament (LXX) translates them as ‘giants.’” How it renders it (since it is not technically a translation) is gigantes which means earth-born—see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
And we can see that he is not only reading his (mis) usage of the English word giants into Greek but into Numbers 13:31-33. Now, writing in terms of that a citation, “describes the Nephilim, as…” is too generic since key hermeneutical questions are: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc. and not just the Bible says regardless of context.
So, “we can” not, “see” his misusage of, “‘giants’ definition” which he actually did not offer us, “makes more sense than ‘fallen.’”
As for, “giants towering…Numbers 13:31-33…the only other time Nephilim appears in the Old Testament” and the whole Bible, by the way, indeed, it merely records, “a falsehood being told by” the 10 unreliable spies (of 12 total), actually, whom God rebuked.
Indeed, on the Angel view post-flood Nephilim, “would defeat the whole point of Genesis 6 if the Nephilim were evil and dodged the flood” and yet, on the Sethite view post-flood Nephilim are perfectly acceptable since they would merely be human decedents of Sethites and Cainites—unsure why only exclusively male Sethites married only exclusively female Cainites: what about all of the other genealogies and why we there no attractive female Sethites and no attractive male Cainites?
Nick then comes to how, “This leaves us to my startling realization” which is:
…if the Nephilim are not described as evil, then quite possibly the Nephilim were actually good guys all along, and our preconceived ideas just poisoned us from thinking any different.
If the Nephilim are good guys, then why would they be mentioned here so “randomly”?
The only thing that makes sense to me is if the Nephilim are the famous Saints-Patriarchs of Genesis 5, they were “giants” at least figuratively, famously known for being holy, loyal to God, etc.
Hence why the passage says “they were mighty men from ages past,” since they lived hundreds of years, and “famous men,” since they are listed by name in Genesis 5, and “on earth in those days and afterwards,” since Noah and his sons survived the flood.
Similarly, Methusela died the same year the Flood happened, so he was around for centuries watching the world get corrupted. It is possible Enoch was “taken away” into “heaven” precisely so he wouldn’t have to experience the Flood.
And on that note, the long lifespans of the others mentioned would have certainly fit being ancient men of old. To me, this makes perfect sense, and fits the exegetical evidence, and yet (for some reason) I’ve not seen anyone who has suggested this.
“Nephilim are not described as evil” yet, again, they are due to the context of being in the overall corruption. Thus, that they were evil is not a preconceived idea but a textually contextual one.
“Nephilim were actually good guys all along” then they would have been on the ark and we could just as easily say that they are not described as good nor, “holy, loyal to God, etc.”—we will see that Nick actually has them on the ark.
“If the Nephilim are good guys” is a merely asserted premise so that, “mentioned here so ‘randomly’” question is a non-issue.
Nick has Nephilim as, “famous Saints-Patriarchs” who (some of which, for some unknown reason?) did not make it onto the ark despite of their good guy saintliness.
Note that he misrepresented the text by writing, “‘on earth in those days and afterwards,’ since Noah and his sons survived the flood” when those words have nothing to do with the flood. Recall that v. 4 reads, “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…” which was, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” since that is when, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
Based on that various missteps we have reviewed, Nick concludes, “Noah would be a Nephilim himself. The Patarich [sic.]-Saints of Genesis 5…we must think the Nephilim were the Patriarch Saints of Genesis 5, as the best most honest exegesis of the text.” Yet, he is the one who has those saints not being saintly since he previously identified sons of God as the Patriarch-Saints of Genesis 5 but that then got switched to that sons of God were, “good guys…holy, loyal to God, etc.” Nephilim. And yet, even his very last statement is that Nephilim, “possibly…were tall and handsome themselves (though Scripture often says being tall and handsome is a worldly trait leading to pride).”
Well, fortunately for him, there is no biblical statement about Nephilim being handsome and the tall issue is a non-issue since that came from one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
On Nick’s view Nephilim, or at least one Nephil, survived the flood so it is a bit odd that there are no reliable post-flood references to a Nephil or Nephilim and the only time we see one unreliable reference it is a negative one: opposers of Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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