In his Annotated Bible, Finis Jennings Dake noted the following regarding sons of God and giants. “The Dake Bible was first published in 1961 and is the result of the work of a man named Finnis Jennings Dake (1902-1987), a Pentecostal minister. As a result of a criminal conviction, his ordination as a pastor with the Assemblies of God was revoked. The charges were eventually dismissed. He later joined the Church of God but in later years became independent of any denomination” (source).
He quotes the KJV which has the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, as:
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
At, “giants” Dake noted, “Heb. nephilim, pl. of nephil, bully, tyrant, giant. Only here and in Num. 13:33; but other words are trans. giant or giants 10 other times in Scripture.”
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Dake’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
At, “also after that” he noted, “Giants after the flood…Sin of angels: giants before and after the flood (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6-7)…Also after that, after those days before the flood, i.e., after the flood, the sons of God again married the daughters of men and produced a second race of giants in the earth who occupied the land of Canaan in advance of Abraham. The purpose here was the same as before the flood – to corrupt the race and thereby make it impossible of the pure seed of the woman to come as predicted.”
Note that, as quoted, Gen 6 states, “giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so it does not refer to the flood. In fact, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later—so, it’s cheating to read ahead and then loop back to insert the flood into a verse that does not reference it.
Yet, Dake told us, “after the flood (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6-7)” yet, those texts read, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” and, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Now, did you read anything about, “after the flood” which is what Dake was supposed to be evidencing? No. Nor will you anywhere since there is no such biblical concept: there is only a one-time sin/fall of Angels in the Bible.
Thus, there is no indication of, “after the flood” nor of, “the sons of God again married” nor, “a second race of giants” referring to Nephilim 2.0, nor that those, “occupied the land of Canaan” ever. Yet, Dake goes on to assert post-flood Nephilim so his theology, or Nephilology, is that God sent the flood which got rid of them so as to prevent, “to corrupt the race and thereby make it impossible of the pure seed of the woman to come” but God must have missed a loophole (the, “sons of God again married” loophole that God was not smart enough to catch but that Dake was clever enough to figure out: and note that post-flood Nephilologists are forced to invent whatever un-biblical tall-tale they prefer since, of course, there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim in the Bible—stand by), the flood was much of a waste, it all happened again, God had to have mere humans do the job He could not get done.
Dake wrote:
The term mighty hunter in Heb. could refer to a hunter of animals or of men to enslave them. Nimrod was a hunter of both men and animals. The Heb. gibbor, trans. mighty here means a powerful warrior, tyrant, champion, giant, or strong one.
It is used of giants who were renown for wickedness (6:4) and of other wicked men…so could logically refer to Nimrod as a tyrant and despot oppressing others in the earth…God, when He came down to see Babel, took action to counteract the rebellion of Nimrod (11; 1-9)…
Nimrod himself is called “a mighty one” and the giants in Gen. 6:4 are called “mighty men.” These came from the fallen angels and daughters of men after the flood (Gen. 6:4…)
Interestingly, he told us, “gibbor…means…giant” and previously, he told us, “nephilim…giant”: when you read enough un-biblical Nephilology, you learn that there were many Hebrew words that mean whatever giants means—I am being sarcastic but it is true that such is what they assert.
It is noteworthy that he was incapable of quoting or citing anything to support the assertion of, “hunter of…men to enslave them. Nimrod was a hunter of…men.”
It is also debilitatingly myopic to assert that gibbor/im, “is used of…renown for wickedness…wicked men” since loyal Angels are referred to as such as are loyal humans such as Gideon (Judg 6) and Boaz (Ruth 2) and well, it is also used of God (Isa 9)—at least Dake went on to write, “or strong man (Job 16:14).”
Also, note that there is no, “rebellion of Nimrod” nor indication he had anything to do with the tower built in the city he founded.
There is literally zero indication that both Nephilim and Nimrod, who would then by definition have been a Nephil, “came from the fallen angels and daughters of men after the flood” and making assertions and following them by citations to texts that state no such thing only makes matters worse for Dake.
We then get the answer to key question 2 as Dake wrote, “Giants and Sons of God (6:4) Proofs Giants Were Sons of Angels” a section in which he noted, “The fact that giants, or beings of abnormal size in body.” Thus, the answer to key question 3 is, “No” since Dake’s usage of giants is something generically subjectively vague about, “abnormal size in body” (oh, so perhaps they were little people) yet, the English Bible’s usage 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.
Yet, Dake asserts, “giants, or beings of abnormal size in body, have lived on earth is one of the most clearly stated truths in Scripture” and his evidence is, “nephil means giant…(Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). That they were abnormal in bodily size is clear from the fact that men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them (Num. 13:33). The Heb. gibbor is also trans, giant, meaning powerful, giant.”
Note that he made a generic reference about a very specific narrative and by doing he, he was able to merely assert, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size” even whilst peppering his assertions with (irrelevant citations). Firstly, he noted and cited, “nephil means giant…(Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33)” and by giants he means, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size” so where in Gen 6:4 did we read anything about, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size”? Nowhere.
Secondly, he did direct us to a text that is very clearly about how, “men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them” yet, he generically referred to, “men of Israel” which is an all-encompassing term and yet, he neglected to inform his readers that the text, Num 13:33, states no such thing. He ought to have noted that he is appealing to one single sentence by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked after the presented an, “evil report” wherein they merely asserted that they saw Nephilim and merely asserted such a size issue.
Thus, Dake was either committing a word-concept (jumping to the conclusion that Nephilim must have been, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size” based on his imagination about what one modern English word must mean) or by cheating again by reading all the way to Num 13, misunderstanding, misreading, misinterpreting, misapplying and misrepresenting it and then looping all the way back to Gen 6.
Dake even emphasizes that, “To say that these original words refer to degree of wickedness instead of size in body, is a mistake” because, “The Anakims were a people great and tall in body (Dt. 1:28; 2: i 0-11,21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21 -22; 14:12-14).” Well, tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants. In this case, it merely means taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
Such are the problems with using uselessly vaguely subjectively generic terms such as, “abnormal…and tall.”
Yet, Dake assures us, “Anak himself was of the giants; and if he and all Anakims were so big, we can be assured the other giants were also (Num. 13:22, 33).”
See how that works—or rather, does not work? Biblically contextually, that, “Anak himself was of the giants” means, “Anak himself was of the” Rephaim. And note the reference to, “so big” after merely being told that they were generally tall which begs the question of how big that was—and, of course, big is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall and giants.
He tops that off by directing us to a text which generally refers to Anakim and then jumps to the evil report by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked, “(Num. 13:22, 33).”
He wrote, “Anak and the sons of Arba of the race of giants (Josh. 14: 15; 15t 13; Num. 13:22)” but, of course, biblically contextually, that means, “Anak and the sons of Arba of the race of” Rephaim, it is also odd phraseology since Anak was a son of Arba.
Dake wrote:
The Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims, and others of [Deut 2] v. 5-7 were of the greatest giant tribes…
Amalekites of 14:7 who were of the giant races (Num. 13:29; 14:39-45) and among the [something] of the nations (Num. 24:20)…
Horites were a branch of the giants who came from the sons of God and daughters of men after the flood (14:6)…
Zamzummims were called giants…
FYI: I bracketed, “something” due to that one online version have, “from” there and another has, “flm” and neiher are coherent.
It is misleading to list, “Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims” since Zuzim (aka Zamzummim) is just a parochial aka for Rephaim and Emim (and Anakim) were subgroups of Rephaim like clans of a tribe since both of those where, “counted [as in accounted] as Rephaim” (yes, even if the KJV has, “counted as giants”) in the very text on which Dake was commenting. Thus, biblically contextually, “giant tribes” means, “Rephaim tribes.”
Now, when he comments on, “Amalekites…the giant races…Horites…the giants who came from the sons of God and daughters of men after the flood” is triply erroneous:
1) Biblically contextually reading it, there is no indication they were Rephaim.
2) In the way that Dake (mis) reads it, there is no indication that they were even just tall.
3) There is literally zero indication that any of them, “came from the sons of God and daughters of men” ever.
But that is not all since he does on to assert, “there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God’s claim on the promised land. They are listed as Kenites, Kenizzites , Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtonms, and Nephilims (Gen. 6:4; 14:5-6; 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; Dt. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:11-13; 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 12:4-8; 13:3; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16).”
Fell free to read all of those cited texts: you will not find a single one that described any of those peoples as being anything more then tall and for most of them, we do not even have that much sated about them.
And to re-emphasize the modus operandi of making assertions followed by citations that are supposed to support them, this time it was, “Horites were a branch of the giants who came from the sons of God and daughters of men after the flood (14:6)” referring to Genesis but that verse reads, “And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness” so, how does that support Dake’s assertion: it does not do so in any way, shape, or form.
Yet, he further assert that he provides, “Proofs giants were sons of angels” but since he is identifying Rephaim (Zuzim/Zamzummims, Emim, Anakim), Amalekites, and Horites as such then there is literally zero indication that any of those, “were sons of angels.”
He also wrote, “The land of Ammon was a land of giants, for giants dwelled there in old time (Dt. 2:19-20)” which, as you well know by now, biblically contextually means, “land of” Rephaim—and it is a shame that Dake was so often generic since he know how to be specific, he went on to write, “A valley of the giants…This is the valley of Rephaim” except, of course, he would think that it means a valley of the giants who were Rephaim. More to the point, he actually wrote, “The phrase remnant of the giants in Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12 should be remnant of the Rephaims”: a reader should not be made to work so hard and read so far into a text (into his notes) just to only eventually run across something that they hopefully catch and then causes them to re-understand every vague statement they read upon until that point.
He also noted, “Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose iron bedstead was about 18 ½ ft. long and 8 ft. 4 in. wide…a material bed for a giant body measuring nearly 18 ft. tall (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Bashan is called the land of the giants (Dt. 3:13).”
Indeed, “described as a giant” is double mistaken: 1) the single modern English word giant in only some English versions is not a description (since it is not elucidated) and 2) you know it means that he was, “described” just identified, really, “as a Repha.”
We do not have a physical description of Og (well, not until utterly wild and un-biblical folklore from millennia after the Torah) and assuming that the size of his bedstead tells us anything about his personal size is actually a non-sequitur based on various assumptions—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Dake wrote, “valley of the giants…valley of Rephaim…another branch of the giant races” another in addition to no one, “Rephaims were well-known giants” and he laments, “unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture the translators translated it dead (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:8; 26:19); and deceased (Isa. 26:14). The word should have been a proper name in all these places, as it is 10 times otherwise.”
That is a rather odd comment since we could say, “unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name” Rephaim, “in Scripture the” commentor Dake relied on the KJV’s rendering as giants, “The word should have been a proper name in all these places.”
Now, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture some renderers have it as giants. When he refers to, “translated it dead” he seems unaware that in those cases, he is actually referring to the root word rapha and not to the Rephaim people group. As you can read all about in the Rephaim chapter of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilologyor in my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s, that root ranges in meaning from healing to dead. The misconception of misreading rapha as Rephaim (again, in terms of mashing together a descriptive term with the people group) has led may pop-Nepilologists and some scholarly ones (see my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?) to mistakenly conclude that Rephaim were some sort of living dead.
Dake wrote, “The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa. 26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men…therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Heb. Rephaim) are now in hell (Isa. 14:9). Solomon confirms this in Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16 where the Heb. word for dead is Rephaim.”
See, he reads the people group into the root word: even if it is written as rapahim/rephaim, merely the male plural of rapha/repha. The Isa text reads, “They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.”
As for, “are now in hell (Isa. 14:9)” well, hell is one of those English words that renders various Hebrew and Geek words—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell?: A Styled Superumology and Infernology. That text reads, “Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.”
Here what the KJV has as Hell is actually sheol where all of the dead went. Also, that text is about the king of Babylon—and Satan, the spiritual power behind him—see my post The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.
This is also concluded by incorporating Pagan mythology into biblical theology since in the Ancient Near East, such as found in Ugaritic texts, when kings and heroes died they were initially referred to as kings and heroes yet, when they had been dead for some time, they were then referred to as the equivalent of what is transliterated as Raphaim/Rephaim: rp’um/rapi’uma—see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
Dake then piles tall-tales upon tall-tales when he wrote that all, “giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs. (2 Sam. 21:16-22; 1 Chr. 20:4-8). Goliath whom David slew wore a coat of armor weighing 196 lbs. And was about 13 ft. tall (1 Sam. 17:4-6).”
We already know that there is zero indication of that all, “giant nations came from” the Gen 6 affair. And, of course, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as big, tall and giants.
As for, “some of them even had” extra digits well, that is only stated about one single person (a Repha: 2 Sam 21).
As for, “Goliath…was about 13 ft. tall” well, that is not only adding a few feet to the standard calculation of 10ft but, for some odd reason, Dake did not inform his readers that he is taking up a few notches what the Masoretic text has him at and yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft so, that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
But what of, “carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs…coat of armor weighing 196 lbs”? Even granting his calculations, the fact is that he had a guy assisting with the equipment.
Also, regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23).
And, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft lifting 1,000 lbs.
Having written some dozen research-based Nephilology books, it is readily discernable to that Dake was a an early establisher of the fundamental errors which have haunted pop-Nephilology and have turned Nephilology into the un-biblical mis-info and dis-info tall-tales, many of them also being neo-theo sci-fi, which is it—see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
In this case, he falls for the non-sequitur of that large things must have been built for and by large people and also taking away from humans things for which they ought to be credited, “It is entirely possible that the pyramids of Egypt, the giant cities of Bashan and other huge monuments of construction will remain an unsolved mystery until they are accepted as the result of the labor and skill of fallen angels”—see my video Ancient Alien Megalithic Builders vs Wally Wallington & Edward Leedskalnin.
Having only provided what reliably results in some tall people, Dake goes on to refer to all giants as, “monstrosities…monsters,” in part due to his oft repeated fallacy that all, “giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men.”
He goes on to refer to, “offspring the size of Bible giants” yet, the only indication we have of such sizes are a vague statement in an evil report about Nephilim for whom we have no reliable physical description, a reference to a guy, Og, for whom we have no physical description, one plumped up assertion about Goliath and generically subjectively vague references to big, tall, and giants.
FYI: the tallest person in the Bible was an Egyptian who was 7.5ft (2 Sam 23).
Dake went on to write:
…if, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and in no case today?
God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind. It was not possible then that giants could be produced by men and women of ordinary size (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19). It took a supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels, to make human offspring of such extra size.
After giants came into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num. 13:33; 2 Sam. 21:16,18,20, 22; 1 Chr. 20:4-8).
Not only is it unscriptural but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen. 6:4 makes it clear—from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude 4 things:
That ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men
That godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women
That a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants
That extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring
The biblical answer to, “why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today?” is that not since pre-flood times have there been any such unions, it was never, “after the flood” and besides that it is because God did not fail, did not miss a return of fallen Angels post-flood to do it all again loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, it is because there is only a one-time sin/fall of Angels in the Bible and those Angels were incarcerated (Jude and 2 Peter 2).
Indeed, “God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind” and Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind”—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Having told us nothing of any import about the size of giants, going on (and on) referring to things such as, “extra size” is meaningless—and, of course, “extra size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as great stature, big, tall and giants.
And feel free to read Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19, Num. 13:33; 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1 Chr. 20:4-8 and the only relevant thing you will find is the evil report—which is actually irrelevant when it comes to the facts of the matter.
The accurate question is not, “Where did giants get their start?” but, “Where did Nephilim, who are utterly unrelated to any other so called giants, get their start?”
As much as I too argue contra the mere human view of Gen 6, such as the Sethite view (which is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice—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) I would not counter-argue based on fallacies such as that such human with human mating does not, “produce such monsters” nor, “produce giants” since anyone who is actually aware of the facts will argue against that much as I have been doing all along. Yet, Dake went on to argue, “The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth…who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants.”
Interestingly, Dake rhetorically asks, “are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s 3 sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were giants? If so, where is our authority for this?” well, where is our authority for a post-flood sin of Angels creating Nephilim 2.0? It is not a good idea to argue against one view based on a fallacious view of one’s own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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