The So Am I Books site (not “So Ammi Books”?) posted an article titled Giants Were Not The Offspring of Angels: A Refutation of the Nephilim Myth for which I could find no author attributed.
It’s noted:
Many Bible readers have been taught that giants—referred to in Scripture as the “Nephilim”—were the result of angels having sexual relations with human women. This myth has been perpetuated by various apocryphal texts like the Book of Enoch and sensationalized by modern fiction and theology.
Those, “Many Bible readers” go back to that 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, “giants—referred to in Scripture as the ‘Nephilim,’” that begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the author’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
See, biblically contextually, “giants—referred to in Scripture as the ‘Nephilim’” means, “Nephilim—referred to in Scripture as the ‘Nephilim.’”
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.”
It’s then noted that:
…a careful reading of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible provides a very different and far more grounded explanation: giants were simply large human beings, descending from regular human bloodlines, not fallen angels.
I’m unsure why it’s a case of thus saith the KJV (in fact, we’re not even told which KJV).
Thus, the goal is to, “dismantle the angel-human hybrid theory by using solid Biblical evidence” commencing with:
The Whole Earth Repopulated by Humans — Not Angels
The Bible is clear: after the Flood, the entire earth was repopulated by the three sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japheth. There is no mention of angels reproducing with women after the flood or creating hybrid beings.
Indeed, such is the case and I’m saying that as a defender of the Angel view—the Angel view doesn’t imply post-flood Nephilim.
One problem with the article is that it employs the term giants without defining it so it leaves us readers having to do the work of guessing and attempting to discern the usage at any given time.
We’re told, “the whole earth was overspread by Noah’s sons, then every human post-flood, including so-called giants, must have come from these three lineages. That alone disqualifies the idea of non-human, angelic bloodlines existing in later generations like Goliath or King Og.”
Indeed, the Angel view doesn’t necessitate nor claim that Rephaim such as Goliath and Og were Nephilim: why would it?
It’s noted, “Goliath Was a Human Philistine, Not a Nephilim” indeed: there’s never been any such thing as post-flood Nephilim and we’re told he was a Repha every time he’s mention—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them. He was of the Rephaim tribe, the Anakim clan of that tribe and a Philistine due to the region in which he lived.
We’re told, “King Og: A Giant, But Still Human” indeed, we’re told he was a Repha every time he’s mention.
It’s noted, “His bed size is given, showing he was physically large” but that’s based on a series of mere assumptions: we don’t have a physical description of him and that, “bed” was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Next to be considered is, “What About the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6?” the answer to which is:
Many assume these “sons of God” were angels, but this interpretation is flawed for several reasons:
Angels are spirit beings and do not marry.
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” — Matthew 22:30 KJV
The term “sons of God” in the Old Testament often refers to righteous human men, especially descendants of Seth, who maintained the worship of the Most High.
Whoever wrote that oddly quoted Jesus, missed His point, based that comment upon un-biblical Angelology, and thus, came to a faulty conclusion besides adding a myth.
That, “Angels are spirit beings” is a man-made tradition largely based on one single poorly translated modern English word: spirit. 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, “Angels” all-encompassing, “do not marry” is debunked by Jesus’ very carefully stated, neuanced and twice qualified statement since He didn’t generically speak vaguely about all Angels but only about, “the angels of God in heaven.” So, the loyal ones, 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.
Did you notice that the author of the article then employed a qualifying term of their own (seemingly to get around difficulties to their position), “‘sons of God” in the Old Testament often” but not always, “refers to righteous human men”: 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.
The descendants of Seth are never referred to as such.
It’s noted, “After the Flood, the Bible says all life outside of the ark perished. If giants had angelic blood, that bloodline would’ve been wiped out—yet we still see giants afterward like Og and Goliath, whose human lineages are well documented.”
Do you see the problem with chasing a modern English word around an ancient Hebrew text?
Here’s an accurate rewrite, “After the Flood, the Bible says all life outside of the ark perished. Since Nephilim had angelic blood, that bloodline would’ve been wiped out—yet we see Rephaim afterward like Og and Goliath, whose human lineages are well documented—which proves they have nothing to do with Nephilim.”
Now, that’s all sans Num 13:33 which is just an unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
We’ve come to the, “Conclusion: Giants Were Just Big Humans” but, “big” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “giants.” Likewise with, “Goliath and King Og…were large in stature” but, “large” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “big” and, “giants.”
Well, 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.
So, ok, he was subjectively big/large.
So, in the end, the article did a good job at counter-arguing against a diminutive straw-man: those counters have nothing to do with the Angel view proper.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.