A certain Paul (who’s bio notes, in part, “have been a pastor of two small congregations (in Iowa and Michigan) for a total of 12 ½ years, and a missionary in Honduras and Mexico for a total of 6 years. All of these years were with the Brethren in Christ denomination”) runs the Tough Bible Stuff site on which he posted an article titled Troublesome Topic: HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET NUMBERS 13:33?
He quotes Num 13:33 thusly:
And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak were from the Nephilim), and we were in our own sight like grasshoppers, so we were in their sight.
At Nephilim he has a footnote which reads, “This word means ‘to bow down’. They bowed down to false gods, and they forced others to bow down to them.” That is rather odd and asks too much of the plural form of napha: fallen/feller/to cause to fall, etc.
He proposes options for how to interpret this verse:
OPTION ONE:
I acknowledge that the most natural reading of Numbers 13:33 is that the Anakites came from, i.e. were descended from, the Nephilim, but that is impossible in a literal sense due to the world-wide flood coming between them. Thus, we must look for another solution by considering more options.
It’s myopic to write in terms of, “the most natural reading of Numbers 13:33” since that refers to reading one single, un-contextual, isolated verse.
Sure, “the most natural reading of Numbers 13:33 is that the Anakites came from, i.e. were descended from, the Nephilim” but the key hermeneutical questions are: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc.
Anyone who appeals to Num 13:33 for any reason (including for post-flood Nephilim, for Nephilim’s relationship with Anakim, for something to do with giants) must mention that they’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, “the most natural reading of” of one single (non-LXX) verse is the 100% opposite of the most natural reading of the chapter’s narrative—continuing on into chap 14.
Indeed, “that is impossible in a literal sense due to the world-wide flood coming between them” and note that post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus. They imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
And those who merely assert that Nephilim survived the flood contradict the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).
All of them must invent fantasy tall-tales about just how Nephilim got past the flood, past God?
That is actually the biblical option: centuries post-flood 10 unreliable guys made up a fear-mongering, scare-tactic, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” style of tall-tale and were rebuked—post-flood Nephilologists side with the 10 guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them.
OPTION TWO:
The Nephilim were on the ark. We are told that only 8 people were on the ark. As part of Option Five I will come back to why I am confident that none of those 8 people was a Nephilim.
In fact, “We are told that only 8 people were on the ark” and that they (sans some animals and insects) were the only survivors: five times.
This option implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. by having they who were one of his main targets, as it were, being on a cruise—on a boat that God Himself, mind you, instructed to be built for surviving the flood.
OPTION THREE:
Some think that the flood was only a regional flood and therefore the Nephilim survived. This option denies what the Bible teaches, ignores the findings of Geology, and defies common sense.
The scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
This option implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. by having the flood not flood enough.
OPTION FOUR:
The parenthetical statement was added later and should be discarded. It is not in the LXX. This leads us to believe it was not in the original and was probably added at a later date. Most Evangelicals, including myself, believe the original penning of the books of the Bible was inspired and without error, but a few problems have crept in since then due to human error.
I say a few problems because there are not very many considering the volume of the Bible and how it was written by about 40 different people over a period of time spanning about 1400 years. We should not lightly or quickly discard something from our Bible. It is our responsibility to look carefully at all the evidence and weigh the possible solutions to such problems.
In this case it is only the parenthetical statement that is problematic. The rest of the statements were obviously exaggerations made with the intent of causing fear. The doubting spies, all except Joshua and Caleb, were trying to spread fear among the people so they would all turn around and go back to Egypt.
They saw three giants, listed by name in verse 22, and yet they said that all the people were of “great size” (v 32). We must understand that everything they said was bigger than reality.
It’s the reference to Anakim that’s not in the LXX, not the whole verse: Brenton’s LXX, for example, reads, “And there we saw the giants; and we were before them as locusts, yea even so were we before them.”
Contextual to the issue of Nephilim and Anakim it’s a simple case: the 10 could have asserted anything about anyone, the point is that there’s literally zero indication of their assertion in the LXX or non-LXX versions.
As for, “three giants” key questions are: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Paul’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
As for, “giants, listed by name in verse 22,” who were, “Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak” that is all we are told about them, not even something as the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as that they were, “of ‘great size.’” In order to claim that, Paul had to quote v. 32 but that’s part of the unreliable evil report.
The only thing we’re contextually told about Anakim (who were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe) is that they were, on average, “tall” (Deut 2) which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
OPTION FIVE:
The parenthetical statement simply means that there was some type of connection between the Anakites and the Nephilim. That connection does not need to be a direct, blood descendancy.
I am convinced that the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 were not a race or family line, but a type of people, i.e. great big bullies. They usually possessed a combination of the following qualities, they were evil, large, ruthless, political geniuses, and great architects and builders. Some possessed most, but not all of those qualities.
Such a definition rules out the possibility that Noah or his wife, or one of his son’s wives, was a Nephilim, and had Nephilim genes. Therefore, the Nephilim did not come on the ark as a separate race of people because they were not a race or tribe. There was no specific DNA set for brutality, or political genius. Remember that the word Nephilim does not mean “giants”, but rather “to bow down”.
However, looking only at the physical aspect, the option for large size was still in the genes of Noah and his family. So there were Nephilim both before and after the flood who were feared for their size and strength which they used to dominate others.
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 Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Thus, we can’t even say that Nephilim were, “big” or, “large” even though those terms are vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage.
As for, “Nephilim…were not a race or family line” well, that which I term the Gen 6 affair is very clear about this. The term Nephilim isn’t just applied to anyone at all who was, “great big bullies…evil, large, ruthless, political geniuses, and great architects and builders” since they are only exclusively the result of, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
What, “rules out the possibility that Noah or his wife, or one of his son’s wives, was a Nephilim, and had Nephilim genes” isn’t a misguided subjective opinion but that God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc.: fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
Therefore, the Nephilim did not come on the ark as a separate race of people because they were not a race or tribe. There was no specific DNA set for brutality, or political genius. Remember that the word Nephilim does not mean “giants”, but rather “to bow down”.
However, looking only at the physical aspect, the option for large size was still in the genes of Noah and his family. So there were Nephilim both before and after the flood who were feared for their size and strength which they used to dominate others.
OPTION SIX
The claim has been made that Genesis 6:1-4 describes the Nephilim as the product of angels that had sexual relations with human women. It is then suggested that something similar happened after the flood as well, but it was not recorded in the Bible.
I am convinced that it is wrong to interpret Gen 6:1-4 to mean angels came to earth and produced offspring from human women (see my translation and paraphrase of Gen 6:1-4). I see the idea of it happening second time as untenable
My preference is a combination of Options Four and Five. [Paul’s footnote, “In his book The Unseen Realm, pages 189-191, Michael Heiser fails to mention all the possible options for how to interpret this verse; he only mentions the most ridiculous options and the one he runs with is untenable in my opinion].
The Anakites were similar to the Nephilim in that they were big bad bullies. The connection that the doubting spies were making between the Anakites and the Nephilim was a real one, although not based on bloodline; both groups were big bad bullies.
There’s literally nothing in Gen 6:1-4 that suggests any such thing and, in fact, the 100% exact opposite is the case.
The Gen 6 affair doesn’t suggest that the flood was much of a waste, God must have missed the, “something similar happened after the flood as well” so that God failed.
In fact, the flood’s not mentioned for the very first time until a v. 17 so some cheat by reading ahead and then loop back to mash it into vss., 1-4, which know nothing of it.
Thus, “see the idea of it happening second time,” is, “untenable” but not due to, “it is wrong to interpret Gen 6:1-4 to mean angels came to earth and produced offspring from human women” which may be Paul’s subjective, “translation and paraphrase” but goes against the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, which 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.
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.
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.
So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
Thus, this comes down to, “The Anakites were similar to the Nephilim in that they were big bad bullies” they may have both been bullies and if by big he means something physical then that’s an insta-fail.
But if only non-LXX versions have one unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked—keep in mind that Paul formulated an entire cosmos, mythos, hermeneutic, worldview, philosophy upon that most untannable theology proper damaging verse—then why, pray tell, weren’t the Bibles’ many, many, many, many, many big bad bullies correlated with Nephilim in any way, shape or form?
Clearly, Paul merely proposed a rescue device, and all he managed to rescue is one non-LXX versions’ unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
That’s a mighty gigantic price to pay for that most diminishing of returns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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